Matt Turner <[email protected]> writes: > The check was in the wrong place, ...
I don't doubt that the change here is good and correct, but I think
there's likely some additional renaming that can be applied:
> + if (parser->version_resolved)
> + return;
> +
> parser->version_resolved = true;
Checking this field immediately before setting it clearly looks correct.
> glcpp_parser_resolve_version(glcpp_parser_t *parser)
> {
> - if (parser->version_resolved)
> - return;
> -
But it looks odd to not be checking the "version_resolved" field within
the "resolve_version" function.
I'm not looking at the actual code now in order to provide a
recommendation, but perhaps it would be more clear if the field were
renamed to be consistent with the naming of the function performing the
guarded manipulation?
-Carl
pgpJv5aRsa1dN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
