On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:32:23 -0500 (EST)
> Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Pete might not like the argument and return-value changes to
> > mon_bin_get_data(), but they made sense to me.
>
> > - ep->flag_data = mon_bin_get_data(rp, offset, urb, length);
> > - if (ep->flag_data != 0) { /* Yes, it's 0x00, not '0' */
> > + length = mon_bin_get_data(rp, offset, urb, length,
> > + &ep->flag_data);
>
> It's a very GNOMEist way to program. Sure you won a stack word
> (assuming you have enough registers), but who the heck cares?
> I'd pass length by reference, which clearly tells us that it's
> intended to be modified. But it's not a big deal.
Heh. When you have a function that needs to return two values, the
choice of which to return directly and which to return by reference is
pretty arbitrary. I chose to return length because it is more
important in the caller's context.
In this case, both ep->flag_data and length are intended to be
modified. I don't know why you call this "GNOMEist", but then I've
never tried to read any GNOME programs.
Maybe it would look better (or more consistent) if _both_ values were
returned by reference? :-)
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
