In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:09:13 +0200), Petr
Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> > -}
> > +#define STR_(s) # s
> > +#define STR(s) STR_(s)
>
> Uh-huh? Why two macros? Well, why any macros at all?
>
:
> > + char *colon, *end;
> > + char *port = STR(DEFAULT_GIT_PORT);
> > + struct addrinfo hints, *ai0, *ai;
The macro is used here.
This is trick.
After preprocess,
/* --- cut here --- */
#define TEST 12345
#define STR_(s) # s
#define STR(s) STR_(s)
test(STR(TEST));
test(STR_(TEST));
test(# TEST);
/* --- cut here --- */
becomes
test("12345");
test("TEST");
test(# 12345);
> > if (sockfd < 0)
> > die("unable to create socket (%s)", strerror(errno));
> > - if (connect(sockfd, (void *)&addr, sizeof(addr)) < 0)
> > - die("unable to connect (%s)", strerror(errno));
:
> You are saying that you were unable to create socket while you just were
> unable to connect. Not any biggie, but it saves the user the trouble of
> one strace after being confused by an error message. :-)
In fact, I don't think it is really worng, because it says that
it could not create (connected) socket or endpoint of connection.
Anyway, I agree that it would be confusing.
Better ideas / wordings?
--yoshfuji
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
