On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:00:58PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: >On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:16:03PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> Yes, I've looked at the grub2 source and I'm much happier. It doesn't >> look like a novice had written it, which is a major improvement. I'm >> still curious WTH anybody would think the nested functions are a good >> thing, though... > >It's kind of a tradition here. I think the point is just to limit the >scope of "hook functions" same way as is usually done for variables.
:-/ As an experienced C programmer, they make me shudder. For simple readability of the code, I'd give up on them altogether. But it's your code... >> The thing I'm more bothered about right now is what will happen to >> people with existing systems who upgrade. That's why Rob raised this >> bug to grave: his remote system locked up as part of an upgrade. What >> do you plan to do to stop this happening again? > >The whole approach is wrong, so maybe it makes sense to avoid it, or maybe >it's too late for that, and we should issue a critical debconf warning when >XFS is detected. > >I will have to think about it. OK; please be quick, as we could really do with something in place for Lenny and we're not far away. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [email protected] You lock the door And throw away the key There's someone in my head but it's not me -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
