On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 02:08:43PM +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> The alternative to this would be a simple equivalent of 
> try_then_request_module()
> for UMH modules: try_umhm_then_request_umh_module() or whatever. So just as I
> argued earlier over UMH limitations, this is not the end of the world for umh
> modules, and it doesn't mean you can't get *properly* add umh modules 
> upstream,
> it would *just mean* we'd be perpetuating today's (IMHO) horrible and loose
> semantics.

I was about to suggest that perhaps a try_umhm_then_request_umh_module() or
whatever should not be a macro -- but instead an actual routine, and we don't
export say the simple form to avoid non-deterministic uses of it from the
start... but the thing is *it'd have to be a macro* given that the *check* for
the module *has to be loose*, just as try_then_request_module()...

*Ugh* gross.

Another reason for me to want an actual deterministic clean proper solution
from the start.


Reply via email to