Albin Tonnerre wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:16 +0100, Vincent Torri wrote :
>
>
>   
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, Brett Nash wrote:
>>     
>
>
>   
>>>>> Also, doing sizeof() is a compiler directive so does not incur any
>>>>> performance hits...plus it matches the rest of EFL.
>>>>>           
>
>   
>>>> using a macro does not involved any performance hit too as PATH_MAX
>>>> is directly replaced by its value before the compilation.
>>>>         
>
>   
>>> Yes, but it's a damn big performance hit when someone changes one size,
>>> but not the other and the whole thing falls over in a steaming
>>> heap... ;-)
>>>       
>
>   
>> if someone changes the size of the buffer without looking how the buffer 
>> is used, it should stop coding and try to be cabinetmaker of fisherman
>>     
>
> Of course. However, not using the buffer size directly avoids unnecessary code
> changes, no matter how carefully you check the code.
>
> So far, I've yet to see any reasonable argument as to why you're seemingly so
> hostile to this change.
>
> Regards,
>   
>   
( He is French :) )


-- 
Regards


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community
Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support
A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy
Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers
http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev 
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Reply via email to