On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Bojan Smojver <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? not a -1; just something to think about in the future
