2014/1/7 Kyle Huey <m...@kylehuey.com> > 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. >
I was talking about reading code, not writing code. I spend more time reading code that I didn't write, than writing code. Of course I do use RAII helpers when I write this kind of code myself, in fact just today I landed two more such helpers in gfx/gl/ScopedGLHelpers.* ... Benoit > > 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
