[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More over-engineering
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: More over-engineering |
Date: |
Sat, 28 Nov 2015 11:22:01 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
>> >> How 'bout the other question: what happens if we don't use that macro?
>> > I assumed that question was rhetorical.
>> No, I'm really curious why all functions need to do that.
> Because they want to catch all non-local exits. Those macros are the
> implementation of what was discussed in the other thread all over.
So it is not protecting something inside those functions, but rather
just trying to hide the non-local exits from the caller?
I can understand having a safe_funcall since that can be very useful
when you don't know what the funcall will do (e.g. a hook), but for
"primitives" where the set of possible non-local exits are well known,
catching all non-local exits unconditionally seems hard to justify.
It really seems like it would be saner to export the error catching
functionality as a separate function and then let every module use it
when it needs it.
Stefan
- More over-engineering, Stefan Monnier, 2015/11/27
- Re: More over-engineering, Aurélien Aptel, 2015/11/27
- Re: More over-engineering, David Kastrup, 2015/11/27
- Re: More over-engineering, Stefan Monnier, 2015/11/27
- Re: More over-engineering, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/11/27
- Re: More over-engineering, Stefan Monnier, 2015/11/27
- Re: More over-engineering, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/11/27
- Re: More over-engineering, Stefan Monnier, 2015/11/27
- Re: More over-engineering, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/11/28
- Re: More over-engineering,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: More over-engineering, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/11/28
- Re: More over-engineering, Paul Eggert, 2015/11/28
- Re: More over-engineering, Stefan Monnier, 2015/11/30
- Re: More over-engineering, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/11/30
- Re: More over-engineering, Stefan Monnier, 2015/11/30
- Re: More over-engineering, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/11/30