[This should have gone out last night already, somehow didn't make it
off my computer.]
On 01/23/2012 11:08 AM, Marcel Metz wrote:
I oppose to the "macros improve readability" argument, these macros
don't improve readability, they hide some regular execution from the
programmer. You would need to know the structure of the macro to
completely understand what the code is doing which could be a problem
for developers that are not aware of the side effects of the macros.
When reading the regular code the keywords that change the execution
would stand out while the macros could easily be skipped.
Indeed, macros with hidden control flow magic are extra evil. C++
offers poor abstractions in this regard, but macros overall bring more
pain than relief, so one generally has to bite the bullet and write some
repetitive -- albeit trivial -- boilerplate.
However, I have another question: I notice that, while most occurrences
are replaced with SAL_WARN, some were left as OSL_ENSURE (which I
changed to SAL_WARN; one missed a comma, anyway) and some are changed to
SAL_INFO. Was there some rationale for that? Anyway, pushed now (and
additionally removed some newly unnecessary #include "tools/diagnose_ex.h").
Thanks,
Stephan
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
