Robert Collins wrote: > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 19:32, Max Bowsher wrote: >> I'm also extremely puzzled, since you seem to be objecting to the use of a >> return value to communicate from a callee to a caller function. Any other >> method *must* be more complicated, and I do believe in avoiding unnecessary >> complication. > > *must* is not strictly true here. > The thing I was objecting to was the use of the return value to return > program flow decisions, as opposed to the information needed to make the > decision.
Ah. I can very easily understand the above objection, but do not believe it applies to my patch. My point is, that currently, program flow decisions are returned in a global variable. I'm trying to change it so that program flow decisions are returned in a return value. I.e., I'm working on the "global variable" ugliness, not the "returns program flow decisions" ugliness. The fact that I am solving the former should not compel me to solve the latter simultaneously. <cheeky>After all, patches should be modular, and as small as possible! :-)</cheeky> Hence my confusion about the rejection of this patch. I'm happy to try and tackle the "returns program flow decisions" issue (in fact, I already have planned the changes to ini.cc), but I consider this to be a separate issue, meriting a separate patch. > A more useful analogy: Studied. (Hopefully) memorized. Max.