On 04/15/2014 04:43 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> writes: > >> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Chen Gang <gang.chen.5...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> In function, if no additional resources to free before quit, commonly, >>> need not use additional local variable 'res' to notice about it. So >>> remove it to simplify code. >>> >> >> Styling wise, there is a school of thought that functions should only >> have one return statement which is probably the original authors >> intention. > > Plausible. But what matters here is whether we think the patch is > worthwhile or not. > > I find Chen's version a bit clearer, but I'm not sure it's worth the > churn. >
Hmm... after think of, for me, it will be fine to still remain the original state, it is not quit worth to churn. Thanks. -- Chen Gang Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed
