On Wednesday 01 March 2006 3:19 pm, Derek Atkins wrote: > Christian Stimming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Actually I do. (should we have a vote on this one? :) And as a reader of > > someone else's code I would actually prefer very much to not have macros > > affect the control flow of the calling function.
Absolutely. > > So in this discussion I > > indeed agree with Chris' explanation: It might be a big convenience for > > the one who is writing the macro, but for the one reading the code it's > > a PITA and if at all possible it should rather be avoided... Basically > > I'd view this just as our ChangeLog policy: People might consider > > writing an extra ChangeLog entry a big inconvenience for them, but when > > reading someone else's commits, it's a substantial simplification for > > looking up particular changes. > How about this: I'll relent on this if Chris and Neil agree to make > ChangeLog entries along with their commits (instead of collecting lots > of commits and then adding changelog entries after the fact). That's a worthwhile trade-off in my book! Chris? -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpHfIUPMKnAV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
