On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 04:45:22AM +0100, Lee Baylis wrote: > I agree avoiding complicating the if statements is more sensible. How about > the attached patch instead - I have removed all references to ROW_WHOLE in > the logic by using bitwise ands. > > However, I think I still prefer to use the enum to restrict/identify the > possible values and meanings for the bitmask, and so ROW_WHOLE still > appears in the enum definition for want of a better description for both > bits being 'on'. Are you OK with this? Yeah, that's fine. I made three small adaptations to your patch; two of them to make it more clear that the values are bitmasks and the last one to remove the other FIXME comment. >> By the way, I disagree with the other FIXME that is present near the >> part of the code you changed: ... > The reason I didn't attempt to fix this one is that I disagreed with it as > well, although since no thinking is given for the statement I didn't want > to just remove it. Is the person who wrote this comment still on this list, > and do they have any more info/discussion as to why they put it in? If not, > I am happy to remove it. Nah, it's been written more than 3 years and 4 months ago according to viewvc. Anyone who wants to change it will have to come up with a good reason himself anyway, so I removed it. Just one more thing before I commit it. Do you not like to have your e-mail address in the source? Usually we use e-mail addresses in both the Changelog and the copyright statements. Regards, Maurice. -- Maurice van der Pot Gentoo Linux Developer griffon26 gentoo org http://www.gentoo.org Gnome Planner Developer griffon26 kfk4ever com http://live.gnome.org/Planner
Attachment:
pgpOFl7c3RK6u.pgp
Description: PGP signature