[ros-dev]
Re: [ros-svn] [gdalsnes] 18113:-reorderInsertXscendingOrder
macro argument order and update uses
Richard Campbell
eek2121 at comcast.net
Wed Sep 28 23:21:30 CEST 2005
And there are methods other then using goto that allow for common
cleanup. One such example is:
int somefunction()
{
BOOL bSuccess;
if ( someotherfunction(arg) )
{
if ( yetanotherfunction(arg) )
{
bSuccess = TRUE;
}
}
CleanUpCode;
}
Anyways, back to the point. Most devs have already argued against the
idea of using macros. I say the discussion stops and we call a vote.
Gunnar Dalsnes wrote:
>
> Richard Campbell wrote:
>
>> Hate to throw my 2 cents in, but why use macros or goto statements at
>> all? None of the demonstrated code actually needs a goto statement
>> to work.
>
>
> Having common cleanup is _very_ good programming practice, and in lack
> of working/efficient try/finally i mean that using gotos and/or macros
> for this highy outweights the (alleged) bad practice of using gotos
> and/or macros.
>
>> Granted i've not seen the actual offensive code , but all examples
>> here can be written without goto statements or macros. Why bother
>> using either?
>
>
> Have a look at any medium to large function in ros and youll pretty
> fast find points of return (in case of error/fail) where it fails to
> do some cleanup. Having a common place for cleanup makes it easier to
> make this right.
>
> Example: kernel32\process\create.c:BasepInitializeEnvironment().
> return at line 496 & 574: fail to destroy proces params
>
>
>> At any rate, i'm inclined to agree that macros are a bad idea.
>> Hiding a mess behind a preprocessor is considered bad coding practice.
>
>
> Thats exactly what macros _should_ be used for. Hiding mess. Im sure
> macros, gotos etc. can be abused but imo this is not the case here.
>
> G.
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev at reactos.com
> http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
More information about the Ros-dev
mailing list