Re: [AD] Two dumb little patches

[Elias Pschernig <elias@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 22:16 +0200, Evert Glebbeek wrote:
> First of all, I'm not really a big fan of preprocessor magic or tricks to 
> modify syntax. So I may be biased.
> 
> > I made a couple little patches. The first one defines a DIALOG_END macro 
> > that users can put at the end of DIALOG structs, without worrying about 
> > warnings with -W or having to type NULL and 0 a bunch of times. Used 
> > like this:
> > 
> > DIALOG dialog[] = {
> >     { d_clear_proc, ... },
> >     { d_text_proc, ... },
> >     { DIALOG_END }
> > };
> 
> Heh. I like this... I'd probably use it myself if it were added. It also 
> makes the code a lot cleaner and easier to read.
> 
> > The second makes code shutting down graphics look cleaner. Used like 
> this:
> > 
> > set_gfx_mode(GFX_NONE);
> 
> This one I'm not sure about... we'll probably get people confused and 
> thinking that C supports optional arguments just as C++ does, or worse 
> write
> set_gfx_mode(GFX_NONE, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> Actually, that is a danger for the first one as well.
> 
> If we're going to vote on this, I vote for including the first but not the 
> second.
> 

Hm, about the first, my opinion is:
pro:
- saves typing of the {NULL, 0, 0, ... } line
con:
- (possibly) confusing
- there are lots of addons which allow much better ways to define dialog
arrays compared to using a static array

So my vote is very slightly in favor of not including it.. but I
wouldn't mind adding it (but keep using an addon for dynamic dialogs
myself).

About the set_gfx_mode:
pro:
- saves (very little) typing
con:
- definitely confusing, since it looks like GFX_AUTODETECT and the likes
- a much better way would be a new function: reset_gfx_mode(); or
shutdown_gfx_mode();

So I vote no.

-- 
Elias Pschernig