[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dependecies
From: |
Jan-Henrik Haukeland |
Subject: |
Re: Dependecies |
Date: |
21 Sep 2002 19:41:37 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Civil Service) |
Rory Toma <address@hidden> writes:
> There is a lot of redundancy in stop and start.c.
>
> After I get this dependency stuff done, I think I'm going to combine
> start and stop into one function. It becomes much more apparent when
> doing multiple actions...
Your right and it's a _good_ idea to refactor and combine the code,
but keep the function prototypes start_xyyz and stop_xyyz (except for
the dstart/dstop which you can combine). The reason is that we someday
could need to differ the two function sets. The function design in
alert is a good idea. That is, you use a couple of short functions
that call a big function that does the actuall work. For instance:
start_process(Process_T p) {
do_action(p, DO_START_PROCESS);
}
stop_process(Process_T p) {
do_action(p, DO_STOP_PROCESS);
}
and
do_action(Process_T p, int action) {
switch(action) {
case DO_STOP_PROCESS: ..
case DO_START_PROCESS: ..
}
}
This means that you should probably combine the start.c and stop.c
files into one action.c file?
--
Jan-Henrik Haukeland
- Potential FreeBSD bug, (continued)
- Potential FreeBSD bug, rory, 2002/09/13
- Re: Potential FreeBSD bug, Jan-Henrik Haukeland, 2002/09/13
- Dependecies, Rory Toma, 2002/09/20
- Re: Dependecies, Jan-Henrik Haukeland, 2002/09/20
- Re: Dependecies, Rory Toma, 2002/09/20
- Re: Dependecies, Jan-Henrik Haukeland, 2002/09/20
- Re: Dependecies, Rory Toma, 2002/09/20
- Re: Dependecies, Jan-Henrik Haukeland, 2002/09/20
- Re: Dependecies, Rory Toma, 2002/09/20
- Re: Dependecies, Rory Toma, 2002/09/20
- Re: Dependecies,
Jan-Henrik Haukeland <=
- Re: Dependecies, Rory Toma, 2002/09/20
- Re: Dependecies, Jan-Henrik Haukeland, 2002/09/21
- Re: Dependecies, Rory Toma, 2002/09/20
- Re: Dependecies, Rory Toma, 2002/09/20