Peter Hutterer <peter.hutte...@who-t.net> writes:
> this hunk took me a while, wouldn't it be easier do do something like:
> do {
> for (i = 0, ...) {
> ...
> }
>
> if (!ti)
> TouchResizeQueue(dev))
> } while (!ti);
It's similar, but you still need to deal with the possibility that
TouchResizeQueue can fail. Given that there are two ways out of the loop
(ti != NULL or TouchResizeQueue fails), having the two tests with a
break seems clearer to me, but I guess that's just a matter of opinion.
Thanks for figuring it out.
--
-keith
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
