From owner-freebsd-current Fri Apr 3 01:05:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA28591 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 01:05:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from implode.root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA28580 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 01:05:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from root@implode.root.com) Received: from implode.root.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by implode.root.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA29913; Fri, 3 Apr 1998 01:01:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199804030901.BAA29913@implode.root.com> To: Greg Lehey cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: error when compiling kernel with SOFTUPDATES In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 03 Apr 1998 17:22:05 +0900." <19980403172205.30045@papillon.lemis.com> From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 01:01:11 -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >>> Wouldn't it have been possible to hide this change with a macro, like >>> was done with the reorganization of the buffer headers under 2.2.6? >> >> no. > >Yes. Prove me wrong. And yes, I know that the form you chose makes >it almost impossible, but that's no excuse. Let's for a moment assume that it was possible to use macros in this case. As someone who generally hates macros in C code, I personally think that would be a step backward. So I think Poul's decision to do it the way he did was the right one. My opinion, of course. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message