On 10.06.21 11:39, Ni, Ray wrote:
Maybe for some context, my main issue at first was that the checks are
all proper runtime checks with no ASSERTs at all, so I got confused how
this situation could happen in a realistic scenario. I needed to trace
the ParseStatus data flow to understand the idea is basically the same
as in the PE library. Code in a way is self-documenting, and this
personally gave me a hard time understanding why it is written this way.
But thanks for clarifying your intention! :)
I assume you are ok with the ParseStatus.
I will send new version based on mail discussion. Thanks!
I don't need to be okay with anything, I'm not a maintainer nor an
authority. But I gave my opinion, which is that it is dead code that
makes the design/flow harder to understand for a third party, at no
obvious benefit.
Thank you for preparing fixes.
Best regards,
Marvin
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#76325): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/76325
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/83277976/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
