From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: split up process.c Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:10:38 +0300 Message-ID: <83vd8mv99d.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83d3ux7ris.fsf@gnu.org> <83lj9lbtka.fsf@gnu.org> <83ocefa1v1.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1278828777 30275 80.91.229.12 (11 Jul 2010 06:12:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 06:12:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dan Nicolaescu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 11 08:12:55 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXpmZ-00005K-BY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:12:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40742 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OXpmY-0003Ru-31 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:12:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=57330 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OXpmP-0003Rp-1w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:12:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXpmN-0002pt-WD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:12:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:56850) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXpmL-0002pY-VA; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:12:42 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L5D00600QCNTL00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:12:40 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.120.144]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L5D005R9QL34E50@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:12:40 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:127031 Archived-At: > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dan Nicolaescu > Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:40:57 -0400 > > > 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.) > > IMO it should go to msdos.c unless that requires other important code changes. I will defer to Stefan and Yidong for the decision. Personally, I think having a function with the same name on two different source files will make maintenance a tad harder than it is when they are on the same file. > BTW, it's kind of funny that msdos.c has MSDOS and subpprocesses #ifdefs. A long time ago I had plans to implement async subprocesses for the MS-DOS port, and OTOH didn't dare to futz with non-MSDOS sources. Thanks, I fixed this now (by reusing the similar definitions in process.c).