On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> For example, if I'm scanning a function for possible early returns (say I'm > debugging a bug where we're forgetting to close or delete a thing before > returning), I now need to scan for NS_ENSURE_SUCCESS in addition to > scanning for return. That's why hiding control flow in macros is, in my > opinion, never acceptable. > If you care about that 9 times out of 10 you are failing to use an RAII class when you should be. Since we seem to be voting now, I am moderately opposed to making XPCOM method calls more boilerplate-y, and very opposed to removing NS_ENSURE_SUCCESS without some sort of easy shorthand to test an nsresult and print to the console if it is a failure. I know for sure that some of the other DOM peers (smaug and bz come to mind) feel similarly about the latter. - Kyle _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
