On 02/17/2016 01:22 PM, Jonathon Jongsma wrote: >>> I disagree, but again, I think it is basically a matter of >>> preference. >> >> It is. From the macro name it is not clear for me how is different >> "GOTO_END" from "goto end" > > For what it's worth, I agree with Pavel here. I think it actually obscures > things instead of making them clearer. > > Well I think that's already a part of our day-to-day coding, we are using GObjects all over the place after all. Macros do have their value if used correctly, and I think this one is a perfect example. So, what do you think about this "improved" one I proposed? If you say you don't like it, I can change it without problems. >> >>> Looking at it again, I could improve this macro a bit more, by moving >>> the g_printerr() call inside and receive the message as a parameter: >> >> any improvements welcome >> >> Pavel >> >>> >>> +#define ERROR_GOTO_END(x, ...) \ >>> + do { \ >>> + g_printerr(x, ## __VA_ARGS__); \ >>> + ret = TRUE; \ >>> + *status = 1; \ >>> + goto end; \ >>> + } while (FALSE) >>> + >>> >>> Regards, Eduardo. >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> virt-tools-list mailing list >> virt-tools-list@xxxxxxxxxx >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virt-tools-list -- Eduardo de Barros Lima (Etrunko) Software Engineer - RedHat etrunko@xxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ virt-tools-list mailing list virt-tools-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virt-tools-list