http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3463
--- Comment #6 from David Simcha <dsim...@yahoo.com> 2009-11-01 12:36:22 PST --- > > 3. The mixin is because I needed a lot of the same logic in realloc() and > > extend() and it was complicated enough that I felt it was the lesser of two > > evils to use a mixin, even with the "variables appearing out of nowhere" > > magic, > > rather than duplicate that logic. > > Sure, duplicating code is never a good idea. The question is, why it can't be > done with a plain-old function? Because I needed to dump a whole bunch of variables (not just 1) into the stack frames of realloc() and extend() and the only way this could have been done with a plain old function would be to create a struct, create a function that returns the struct, etc. or to use lots and lots of out paramters. I really felt the mixin was the least unclear way that this logic could be injected into both extend() and realloc(). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
