On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Joe Nall<joe@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 14:40 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 10:31 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> It seems to me it'd make sense to convert all these kinds of snippets >>>> into macros. Am I right, or is there a reason against doing this? >>>> >>> >>> When this was discussed for the example of GConf schemas in the >>> packaging committee a few weeks ago, there was quite a bit of pushback >>> about 'obscure macros' hiding whats really going on... >> >> Honestly, that just sounds silly. It's not obscuring things, it's a >> sensible level of abstraction and reuse. >> >> I suspect you'd have trouble selling that position to developers - >> "instead of calling functions from obscure external libraries, just copy >> and paste the code from them into every single app you build!" I don't >> think that'd go down a storm. ;) > > Libraries have well defined error handling. Macros can get pretty mysterious > when they start failing. Poor analogy. > ??? There are tons of bugs I have dealt with where a library has gone off into some mysterious way that didn't follow defined error handling. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
