Eric Blake wrote:
According to Charles Wilson on 5/5/2008 6:23 PM:
| -# func_emit_wrapper arg
| +# func_emit_wrapper_part1 arg
Since you provide a default, I'd show that arg is optional, as in:
# func_emit_wrapper_part1 [arg=no]
Ack.
Is func_emit_wrapper_part1_arg1 even used? Why not just delete it?
No, it is not (currently) used. However, that's just an artifact of
where I happened to "split" the original emit function: it just so
happens that the only place the original emit function used the
*original* arg, ended up in the second half, after I split the emit
function into two parts.
I figured symmetry was easier for future maintainance, than strict
adherence to the rule/pattern/guideline concerning supplying only the
minimum argument set to each (sub)function called.
But it doesn't matter that much to me: if you still think I should
remove the superfluous argument and make the (sub) functions
un-symmetric, I will.
Isn't puts slightly more efficient than printf? But it doesn't matter
that much to me.
Not part of the scope of this patch: the old version used printf, the
new version uses printf. I figured I'd get dinged for changing more than
was strictly necessary to silence the observed warnings -- this was
supposed to be a very simple, uncontroversial patch that could've made
it in to 2.2.4...
The "out of the scope of this patch" comment also applies to /all/ of
Ralf's comments on this patch, but I'll address that in a separate message.
Besides, we know that printf can deal with very large strings (because
so far it is working with 4K+ ones, even if gcc -std=c99 *warns* about
it. We don't know that puts() does. (It probably does, but we don't
*know* that).
--
Chuck
