RE: Good Idea (tm): Code Consolidation for Functions and Macros that Access the Process Address Space

["Joseph D. Wagner" <wagnerjd@prodigy.net>]

>> On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 07:58:55PM -0500, Joseph D. Wagner wrote:
>> SUBJECT: Good Idea (tm): Code Consolidation for Functions and Macros
>> that Access the Process Address Space
>>...
>> Remember, if a function call has no place for a returned value to go,
>> nothing bad happens; the returned value is simply ignored/discarded.

> And the compiler warning?

See WHY THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED #3 "Forces better coding structures and
procedures..."  Frankly, error controls should have been programmed into
the code anyway.  It's just good programming practice.

>> SOLUTION:

> Get rid of the _ret forms.  Their use is frowned on today anyway
because
> they hide the real meaning of what the code is trying to do, and
hiding
> the fact that a function can return in the middle of what looks like a
> macro call is _REAL_ _BAD_.

While I respectively disagree with you, I really don't care which set of
functions/macros are eliminated for consolidation purposes.  My original
point still stands that maintaining duplicate functions -- well, near
duplicate with the exception of the returned error code -- is a waste of
time, resources, and coding, and for the purpose of simplified
maintenance, one of the sets of duplicate functions/macros should be
eliminated.

Joseph Wagner