From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Mitchell To: ian@zembu.com Cc: rth@cygnus.com, binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Patches for IRIX6 N32-ABI ld Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:00:00 -0000 Message-id: <19990626211555X.mitchell@codesourcery.com> References: <19990626204616.9890.qmail@daffy.airs.com> <19990626140924Q.mitchell@codesourcery.com> <19990627012218.14466.qmail@daffy.airs.com> <19990627012218.14466.qmail@daffy.airs.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-q2/msg00368.html >>>>> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor writes: Ian> as far as I am concerned long term maintainability is the Ian> single most important characteristic of all code changes. I Ian> will pick maintainability over features every time. You're preaching to the choir. :-) I'm always adamant about this point myself when in comes to C++ changes in EGCS. Ian> I don't really care. But I agree with Richard: I don't want Ian> to see code that will silently fail if a new value is added Ian> to the start of an enum. The thing we're disagreeing about is the unmainaintainability of the proposed change. I'm very used to the idiom in question (we use it *lots* in GCC; functions return 0 to indicate falsity, and various integers to indicate differents kinds of truth, which some callers care about and some don't.) So, you should be arguing with me about the maintainability of this idiom, not telling me to prize maintainability! :-) :-) But, hey, reasonable people can agree to disagree. I'll make the change you want and put it in. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com