On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 08:31 -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: > IMO the better way to handle this would have been > > int ret, tmpret; > > and using tmpret when the function-wide ret shouldn't be touched > > Overloading "ret" and the semi-hidden setting of the function-wide ret > make this code less clear than it could be.
That is what the original patch had, in fact. I kinda liked the locally scoped approach better, because it seemed cleaner to me. But then again, I'm not known for very good taste. > Continuing down the overly picky trail: It would be better to focus > CHANGES entries on the impact to library consumers, and omit details > like "locally[-]scoped variables". OK. Question: was your comment essentially a -1, in which case I'll revert/change, or was it just a remark? -- Bojan
