On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 01:13:26AM +0000, seventh guardian wrote: > On 12/31/06, Dominik Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 12:48:08AM +0000, seventh guardian wrote: > >> On 12/31/06, Dominik Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 11:35:21PM +0000, seventh guardian wrote: > >> >> The DeadPipe signal handling is actually done by an empty function. Is > >> >> there any future use for it? Or is it just a relic and may be removed > >> >> from the code? > >> > > >> >It may or may not be a relic of older code, but one basic idea of > >> >the signal handler rewrite back in '98 or '99 was to have the same > >> >signal handling code for fvwm and all modules. So, one reason to > >> >keep it is just that some of the modules use it. > >> > >> Isn't the code for the modules independent from the fvwm code? The > >> DeadPipe I'm talking about is in module_interface.c/h and in fvwm.c.. > > > >Yes, the code is independent, but it was created by copy-and-paste. > > Should it remain the same on the two spots? IMHO the code would be > better to maintain if there were no "copy-paste links".. they are not > obvious, and tend to be forgotten..
I'd rather say the code should go into some library to remove the code duplication. > >> >Update: The DeadPipe handler has been empty at least since the > >> >sighandler rewrite (fvwm-2.2 or earlier). Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
