From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:38:32 +0300 From: Alexey Tourbin To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Message-ID: <20101122073832.GA28111@altlinux.org> References: <1289923002-14132-1-git-send-email-kirill@shutemov.name> <20101122054046.GA22001@altlinux.org> <20101122071450.GA2390@shutemov.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101122071450.GA2390@shutemov.name> Cc: "Alexey I. Froloff" , devel@lists.altlinux.org, Alexey Gladkov , "Dmitry V. Levin" Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0/8] rpm: cleanup set.c and set.h X-BeenThere: devel@lists.altlinux.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Id: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 07:38:32 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 09:14:50AM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 08:40:46AM +0300, Alexey Tourbin wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 05:56:34PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutsemov wrote: > > > Let's try to make set-versions implementation more maintainable. > > > > > > Kirill A. Shutemov (8): > > > set.c, set.h: get rid of C++-style comments > > > set.c: get rid of nested functions > > > > I reckon most of these changes aren't necessary. > Cleanup is never necessary. "Cleanup" is inappropriate term here, along with "more maintainable". Rather, the code in question could be "more portable". E.g. nested functions are non-portable. But I find them convenient. Thus I choose to sacrifice portability for convenience - I see no reason to stick to c89, as long as gcc itself is portable. > > This is my coding style, and yes, I use -std=gnu99 features. > Ok. Pushed to git. Just in case.