On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 12:06:23AM +0100, Janus Weil wrote: > 2011/11/2 Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com>: > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> What the patch does is to change the return value from > >> 'gfc_try' (SUCCESS/FAILURE) to 'match' > >> (MATCH_YES/MATCH_NO/MATCH_ERROR). Of course we're not really > >> 'matching' anything here, but the yes/no/error range of values is > >> exactly what we need in this case, so I think (ab-)using the 'match' > >> enum makes sense. > > > > I don't like that at all. Sooner or later that's going to confuse > > someone. > > I found the current way even more confusing and thought this might be better. > > > > There has to be a better solution... > > ... like what? Introducing a new enum just for this one case? Probably not. > > Anyway, we can also just leave it like it is. It was just a small > thing that I stumbled across. >
At least add a comment about the re-use (abuse?) of the enum. This should reduce confusion months from when someone wonders why gfc_extend_expr returns a "match" for a non-matching function. -- Steve
