From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1JLHGl-00027i-IL for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 07:14:51 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JLHGj-00026x-MS for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 07:14:49 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JLHGj-00026f-5G for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 07:14:49 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JLHGj-00026c-2F for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 07:14:49 -0500 Received: from ns39764.ovh.net ([91.121.25.85] helo=nexedi.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JLHGj-0001iQ-0i for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Feb 2008 07:14:49 -0500 Received: from [10.8.0.46] (unknown [10.8.0.46]) by nexedi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E29133EB26 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2008 13:21:30 +0100 (CET) From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 13:14:45 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <20080201195838.GA28745@thorin> In-Reply-To: <20080201195838.GA28745@thorin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200802021314.45401.okuji@enbug.org> X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Subject: Re: read_config_file() is missleading X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 12:14:49 -0000 On Friday 01 February 2008 20:58, Robert Millan wrote: > The following function name: > > normal/main.c:read_config_file (const char *config, int nested) > > is missleading. It does actually execute the config file, not just > read it. Does it seem fine to rename it? > > How about `process_config_file' ? > > Or maybe I am missing something. I think the initial idea was that read_config_file would only read a file, then a menu would be executed by another function. But it is not for some reason. I forget why. Maybe it didn't make sense to separate the functionality into two functions. I am not sure. If you can think of any reason that we should separate the functionality, you can make process_config or something like that. Otherwise, it is fine for me to rename the function. Okuji