Re: [ros-dev] Re: [ros-svn] [gdalsnes] 18113:-reorderInsertXscendingOrder macro argument order and update uses

[Richard Campbell]

And there are methods other then using goto that allow for common 
cleanup.  One such example is:

int somefunction()
{
    BOOL bSuccess;

    if ( someotherfunction(arg) )
    {
        if ( yetanotherfunction(arg) )
        {
            bSuccess = TRUE;
        }
    }
    CleanUpCode;
}

Anyways, back to the point.  Most devs have already argued against the 
idea of using macros.  I say the discussion stops and we call a vote.

Gunnar Dalsnes wrote:

>  
>  Richard Campbell wrote:
>
> >   Hate to throw my 2 cents in, but why use macros
> > or goto statements at 
> >  all?  None of the demonstrated code actually needs a goto statement 
> >  to work.  
>
>  Having common cleanup is _very_ good programming practice, and in lack 
>  of working/efficient try/finally i mean that using gotos and/or macros 
>  for this highy outweights the (alleged) bad practice of using gotos 
>  and/or macros.
>
> >   Granted i've not seen the actual offensive
> > code , but all examples 
> >  here can be written without goto statements or macros.  Why bother 
> >  using either? 
>
>  Have a look at any medium to large function in ros and youll pretty 
>  fast find points of return (in case of error/fail) where it fails to 
>  do some cleanup. Having a common place for cleanup makes it easier to 
>  make this right.
>
>  Example: kernel32\process\create.c:BasepInitializeEnvironment().
>  return at line 496 & 574: fail to destroy proces params
>
>
> >   At any rate, i'm inclined to agree that
> > macros are a bad idea.  
> >  Hiding a mess behind a preprocessor is considered bad coding practice. 
>
>  Thats exactly what macros _should_ be used for. Hiding mess. Im sure 
>  macros, gotos etc. can be abused but imo this is not the case here.
>
>  G.
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>