pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> spec->readStack = rl;
spec->line[0] = '\0';
+ } else if (isElif) {
+ spec->readStack->reading = match && spec->readStack->readable;
+ if (spec->readStack->reading)
+ spec->readStack->readable = 0;
+ spec->line[0] = '\0';
+ match = -1;
Sorry but this all still seems like something duct-taped to the side to me.
Like I said earlier in private: now that you know what's involved, please
rethink the approach from scratch - what you really need tracked and where, and
how to best achieve these things in a clear and concise manner. One can almost
always do a better job the second time around.
There would seem to be a fair amount of overlap in these various tracking
variables, some local, some wider, that could be eliminated / combined. For
example, isn't elifEnabled practically the same thing as checking whether
->next non-NULL? Also makes me wonder if it'd fit in more naturally if you just
treated %elif as a new %if inside an %else, which is what it ultimately is.
%elif is just syntactic sugar afterall.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/613#pullrequestreview-190734941_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
