On 12/03/14 17:00, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
Which name pattern do you find more appropriate in such
an use case?
I think Dan wants the label to be descriptive about the tasks
needed in the exception handling itself.
I would usually prefer also such a target-oriented labelling
for the affected identifiers.
How are the chances to express an expectation in this direction
unambiguously for the proposed coding style update?
This makes sense as the exception handling steps may be reused
for different failures in the code.
I would stress a different reason from my point of view.
I meant as apposed to using a goto-/source-oriented labelling. Please
provide your point of view. That way the explanations given in this
email exchange might be incorporated in the next round of the proposed
update or at least be used as input.
Regards,
Arend
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
