From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <kas@shutemov.name>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on sa.int.altlinux.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS
	autolearn=no version=3.2.5
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:10:15 +0200
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To: ALT Devel discussion list <devel@lists.altlinux.org>
Message-ID: <20101116231015.GB14760@shutemov.name>
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>
	<20101116230727.GA26592@altlinux.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101116230727.GA26592@altlinux.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04)
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 23:10:24 -0000
Archived-At: <http://lore.altlinux.org/devel/20101116231015.GB14760@shutemov.name/>
List-Archive: <http://lore.altlinux.org/devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:devel@altlinux.org>

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:07:28AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> 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)
> > > > -    {
> > > 
> > > Why shouldn't this and other functions remain returning void?
> > 
> > We shift base62 to the next position and want caller to know about this.
> > 
> > So we have two options:
> > 
> > - return new position;
> > - pass char ** as argument instead of char *.
> > 
> > Do you prefere the last one?
> 
> Which one is more readable,
> base62 = put_digit(base62, 61);
> or
> put_digit(&base62, 61);
> ?

Ok, I'll rework it.

Any comments on other patches?

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov