From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ldv@altlinux.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 02:07:28 +0300
From: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Message-ID: <20101116230727.GA26592@altlinux.org>
Mail-Followup-To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
	ALT Devel discussion list <devel@lists.altlinux.org>
References: <1289923002-14132-1-git-send-email-kirill@shutemov.name>
	<1289923002-14132-3-git-send-email-kirill@shutemov.name>
	<20101116221458.GA5126@altlinux.org>
	<20101116225453.GA14760@shutemov.name>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101116225453.GA14760@shutemov.name>
X-fingerprint: FE4C 93AB E19A 2E4C CB5D  3E4E 7CAB E6AC 9E35 361E
Cc: ALT Devel discussion list <devel@lists.altlinux.org>
Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 2/8] set.c: get rid of nested functions
X-BeenThere: devel@lists.altlinux.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ALT Linux Team development discussions <devel@lists.altlinux.org>
List-Id: ALT Linux Team development discussions <devel.lists.altlinux.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.altlinux.org/mailman/options/devel>,
	<mailto:devel-request@lists.altlinux.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.altlinux.org/pipermail/devel>
List-Post: <mailto:devel@lists.altlinux.org>
List-Help: <mailto:devel-request@lists.altlinux.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.altlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/devel>,
	<mailto:devel-request@lists.altlinux.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:07:28 -0000
Archived-At: <http://lore.altlinux.org/devel/20101116230727.GA26592@altlinux.org/>
List-Archive: <http://lore.altlinux.org/devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:devel@altlinux.org>


--u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:54:53AM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:14:58AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 05:56:36PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutsemov wrote:
> > [...]
> > > +static inline
> > > +char *put_digit(char *base62, int c)
> > > -    void put_digit(int c)
> > > -    {
> >=20
> > Why shouldn't this and other functions remain returning void?
>=20
> We shift base62 to the next position and want caller to know about this.
>=20
> So we have two options:
>=20
> - return new position;
> - pass char ** as argument instead of char *.
>=20
> Do you prefere the last one?

Which one is more readable,
base62 =3D put_digit(base62, 61);
or
put_digit(&base62, 61);
?


--=20
ldv

--u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkzjDq8ACgkQfKvmrJ41Nh48ZwCgoWq3BPeD7HAF3iYqJkYt0Qw2
tLsAn2NrUeMM/FdJIA42TMFpZ5fS0lnt
=p6eG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24--