Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:44:30 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Merged patches Message-ID: <4.2.2.20000125234009.0404f860@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200001260518.VAA08275@apollo.backplane.com> References: <4.2.2.20000125133808.019fd6a0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:18 PM 1/25/2000 , Matthew Dillon wrote: > No. There is a time and place for the use of a switch statement to > cover all your bases, but a *flags* field is *NOT* it. Before you assert this so emphatically, allow me to demonstrate. Again, once 4.0 is frozen, I intend to generate some patches which show what I have in mind. > Making these sorts of changes to perfectly good, working, and well > tested code is a great way to screw up said code. One can argue this about any refinement to the code -- including optimizations and changes that improve readability. I think that the code SHOULD evolve, and adding constructs which make it more readable, more efficient, easier to follow, and less susceptible to bugs is very productive. Your mileage may vary, of course. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.2.2.20000125234009.0404f860>