28 Sep
2005
28 Sep
'05
6:13 p.m.
Phillip Susi wrote:
Gunnar Dalsnes wrote:
You take this too serious. Didnt you see the smiley?
<snip>
The new operator is just a word as anything else. Just because its a
compiler feature doesnt make it "magic". It just means that every C++
compiler should reserve and support it just like we can say ReactOS
reserve and support Xxx for usage Xxx. And you can overload new u
know. Then you never know what it _really_ does;-P
I think you missed the point. Lots of code in ReactOS uses gotos in the way I
described before. As
all beginning programming students are taught, gotos are evil, but
sometimes they are the lesser evil. This type of error handling in C is
a time when CAREFUL use of gotos is less evil than the alternative. It
avoids duplicating cleanup code while remaining clear and concise, which
is why it is an industry standard practice. If you search you can find
plenty of code out there that uses it, and plenty of best practices
material that advises it.
SOME functions does, but i can probably count them on one hand (you
wrote those?). To beeing an industri standard as you claim it surely
hasnt cought on.
<snip>
First, Im not forcing the RETURN macros on anyone (I am trying to force
the list macros, but its for your own good;-P) I applied those RETURN
macros in win32k as a part of a locking rewrite and until i myself
presented them as an alternative to gotos, I havent heard a damn thing
about it.
Again, here are the benefits with RETURN:
1) easy to use. looks like regular return but different enough to make
people understand they are different;-P
2) much easier to read and spot exit points compared to gotos that jump
to various return labels (done, error, cleanup, exit, cleanup2, cleanup3
etc) mixed with "regular" gotos.
3) syntax highlight RETURN and you see a whole new world.
4) a proposed standard way of doing cleanup. not dozens of different
goto labels (done, error, cleanup, exit, cleanup2, cleanup3 etc).
G.