From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@gnu.org>
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: split up process.c [was: Re: Changes in process.c]
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:43:46 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <83ocefa1v1.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yxqvd8ph8w6.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@gnu.org>
> Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:05:29 -0400
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> >> From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@gnu.org>
> >> Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:52:39 -0400
> >>
> >> Why don't we split the part for supporting MS-DOS into a different
> >> file: process-no-subprocesses.c (or some better name)
> >>
> >> That makes the file easier to read, less clunky, and problems easier
> >> to catch with a simple grep.
> >
> > It will still leave two implementations of the same code.
>
> That's better than what we currently have.
I did something more radical (revno 100767): unify the two branches of
process.c.
There's now only one function, wait_reading_process_output, which has
2 different implementations. (I could easily have a single function
with two different bodies conditioned by `subprocesses', or I could
move the second implementation to msdos.c, if people prefer that. But
both alternatives looked no cleaner, and the latter would even make
more maintenance headaches, IMO.)
Other than this single function, the rest is unified, at the cost of a
few "#ifdef subprocesses" here and there. Not surprisingly, I found
and fixed a few bugs along the way...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-10 13:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-08 18:33 Changes in process.c Eli Zaretskii
2010-07-08 18:52 ` split up process.c [was: Re: Changes in process.c] Dan Nicolaescu
2010-07-08 20:35 ` Eli Zaretskii
2010-07-08 23:05 ` Dan Nicolaescu
2010-07-09 23:01 ` split up process.c Glenn Morris
2010-07-10 1:35 ` Dan Nicolaescu
2010-07-10 13:43 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2010-07-11 3:40 ` Dan Nicolaescu
2010-07-11 6:10 ` Eli Zaretskii
2010-07-11 14:48 ` Chong Yidong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=83ocefa1v1.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=dann@gnu.org \
--cc=emacs-devel@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.