[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More over-engineering
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: More over-engineering |
Date: |
Sat, 28 Nov 2015 18:34:51 +0200 |
> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 11:22:01 -0500
>
> >> >> 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?
Not hide, intercept them and prevent them.
- 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, 2015/11/28
- Re: More over-engineering,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- 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