On 03/08/2010 12:05 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Iván Briano (Sachiel) > <sachi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Christopher Michael >> <cpmicha...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> On 03/08/2010 07:50 AM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: >>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:36 AM, Enlightenment SVN >>>> <no-re...@enlightenment.org> wrote: >>>>> Log: >>>>> Add macros (actually defines like hint_fill_set) for expand_set to >>>>> make it easier for people to know that weight_set handles expansion. >>>>> >>>> ouch! these macros will make it more error-prone and confusing, not >>>> less. Expand would be boolean, but we get double values... meaning? >>>> >>>> I'd rather add static inline functions that would check and convert >>>> parameters. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> How are they going to make it more error prone ? They are exactly like >>> the fill_set macros ? By your boolean logic there, wouldn't that apply >>> to fill_set also ? >>> >> >> I'd say yes. If we make one inline and converting as needed, so >> should we do with the other. > > sure, both of them. fill_set(o, bool, bool), fill_get(o, bool*, bool*) >
I still fail to see how my macros make it any more error prone than the existing fill_set macros (that apparently noone complained about until this)...and if anything, it's less confusing for new people imo...fill/expand is much more common (and less confusing) than weight/align in this context. dh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
