On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, 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. i am not hostile. I never said that devilhorns has to rever his code. I asked a question and i'm not convinced, that's all. Vincent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
