guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
User: guy
Date: 2005/02/04 02:54 PM
Log:
Instead of having a single enumerated type for status return values from
cf_ functions, have separate ones for different classes of routines,
I can understand that point of view (still unsure what's the right way
for this).
and
use gboolean when the return value is just "success" or "failure" - that
way you don't get compiler warnings if a case statement isn't handling a
particular status value if the routine in question won't return it.
Which compiler warning would that be? Sorry, I just don't understand
that one.
Directory: /trunk/gtk/
Changes Path Action
+5 -8 main.c Modified
+9 -9 print_dlg.c Modified
Directory: /trunk/
Changes Path Action
+25 -25 file.c Modified
+33 -28 file.h Modified
+3 -3 tethereal.c Modified
Hi Guy!
Seems you've just reverted some of the changes I've made ?!? We should
come to an agreement about this :-)
For the print functions, I would agree that both ways could be arguably
be ok, so no problem with the changes you've made (that's just a matter
of personal like/dislike IMHO).
But when it comes e.g. to the cf_filter_packets function, I would simply
disagree, as an gboolean is unintuitive. What does it mean, if a
function named cf_filter_packets will return TRUE or FALSE? That's the
reason I've changed it to the error values.
What do you think about this?
Regards, ULFL
