On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:46:37AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote: > 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.
if (!ti && !TouchResizeQueue(dev))) break; will do then, the while (!ti) makes it a lot more obvious that we're looping until we find a touchpoint. (plus, I never understood the benefit of for (;;) over a while(1) :) Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ 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