On Saturday 02 February 2008 13:14, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > On Friday 01 February 2008 20:58, Robert Millan wrote: > > The following function name: > > > > normal/main.c:read_config_file (const char *config, int nested) > > > > is missleading. It does actually execute the config file, not just > > read it. Does it seem fine to rename it? > > > > How about `process_config_file' ? > > > > Or maybe I am missing something. > > I think the initial idea was that read_config_file would only read a file, > then a menu would be executed by another function. But it is not for some > reason. I forget why. Maybe it didn't make sense to separate the > functionality into two functions. I am not sure. > > If you can think of any reason that we should separate the functionality, > you can make process_config or something like that. Otherwise, it is fine > for me to rename the function.
I was mistaken. It really depends on the meaning of "execute". For me, executing a menu means analyzing the menu structure, displaying it, controlling user inputs, and so on. read_menu_config does not execute a menu in this sense. But, of course, it executes commands in a config file. Okuji _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
