On 03/06/2018 12:38 PM, Nash, George wrote: > I am not a fan of the VERIFY_SUCCESS macro. It is not prefixed with the OC_ > which should be used for all iotivity macros to help prevent name collisions > with macros from external projects. Even with the prefix I think this is an > internal macro that should not be exposed to the public APIs. I have seen > some code recently that used the VERIFY_SUCCESS macro in sample code. The > only reason it is building is because it is linking with internal headers. > (not 100% sure about the non-public API statement) > > We definitely should check where it is defined in multiple places and see if > we can consolidate those definitions to a single definition. If we cannot > consolidate to one definition I would rename one of the usages. > > Finally if nothing else works the #ifdef #undef // macro #endif option should > be applied. > > This is all opinion and I am open to other suggestions. > > George Nash
the VERY_FUNNY (oops, VERIFY_SUCCESS) stuff should only be used for unit tests, no? that style of macro would be pretty ugly for non-test code anyway as there tend to be embeded returns/goto-exits/etc in at least some of the series. Production code, and even examples, would want to handle errors, not just bail. _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
