1 |
On Sunday 02 June 2013 04:39:32 Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> Dnia 2013-06-02, o godz. 03:29:33 Mike Frysinger napisał(a): |
3 |
> > On Sunday 02 June 2013 03:16:53 Michał Górny wrote: |
4 |
> > > Dnia 2013-06-02, o godz. 03:09:31 Mike Frysinger napisał(a): |
5 |
> > > > On Sunday 02 June 2013 02:51:34 Michał Górny wrote: |
6 |
> > > > > Dnia 2013-06-01, o godz. 23:03:20 Mike Frysinger napisał(a): |
7 |
> > > > > > simple set of helpers to save/restore a variable in a limited |
8 |
> > > > > > section of code |
9 |
> > > > > > |
10 |
> > > > > > you can see an example of it in action at the end of the file |
11 |
> > > > > > where i need to tweak epatch (and no, doing `LC_COLLATE=C set -- |
12 |
> > > > > > ....` does not work). |
13 |
> > > > > |
14 |
> > > > > Why the ugly hackery instead of proper 'local' scope? |
15 |
> > > > |
16 |
> > > > there's no way to undo the local thus it affects the rest of the |
17 |
> > > > func. this makes sure the change is actually localized to where it |
18 |
> > > > is needed. |
19 |
> > > |
20 |
> > > By use of global variables and a bunch of additional code and evals. |
21 |
> > |
22 |
> > the implementation details of estack_* doesn't matter |
23 |
> |
24 |
> It's not beautiful language with proper local scopes, so it *does* |
25 |
> matter. |
26 |
|
27 |
then go ahead and propose something different. otherwise you're pointlessly |
28 |
twisting in the wind. |
29 |
|
30 |
> > > Also, do you really want the collation to be changed only in this one |
31 |
> > > place? This looks weird to me. |
32 |
> > |
33 |
> > yes, i only want to force it here, because it's the only place where |
34 |
> > collation matters in the func currently. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> So, effectively, changing it once in the beginning of the function |
37 |
> would be simpler and wouldn't cost anything. |
38 |
|
39 |
most likely, *today*, yes. in the future, who knows. but since this is the |
40 |
only place in the func where we need to force a specific sorting, it makes |
41 |
sense to localize the change to that. |
42 |
|
43 |
i snipped the rest of your e-mail because it wasn't worth responding to |
44 |
-mike |