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 _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
