From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18377 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2015 22:25:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 18362 invoked by uid 89); 22 Aug 2015 22:25:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-pa0-f48.google.com Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com (HELO mail-pa0-f48.google.com) (209.85.220.48) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:25:24 +0000 Received: by padfo6 with SMTP id fo6so31762957pad.1 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:25:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.67.22.99 with SMTP id hr3mr28544934pad.41.1440282322231; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:25:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from seba.sebabeach.org.gmail.com (173-13-178-53-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.13.178.53]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pe1sm12185156pbb.28.2015.08.22.15.25.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:25:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Evans To: Keith Seitz Cc: Andrew Burgess , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/19] New completer API References: <20150806191404.32159.50755.stgit@valrhona.uglyboxes.com> <20150807225655.GA2986@embecosm.com> <55C54778.2030004@redhat.com> <20150808064442.GB2986@embecosm.com> <55C62D6D.1000903@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:25:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <55C62D6D.1000903@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Sat, 8 Aug 2015 09:25:17 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00639.txt.bz2 Keith Seitz writes: > On 08/07/2015 11:44 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: >>> I don't like boolean return values in this case. Forget knowing what >>> happens under the covers (or now that you've read the proposed API). >>> Just by reading "bool add_completion (struct completer_data *, const >>> char *);" can you tell what the boolean return value means? >> >> No. But you could rename to >> add_completion_then_should_more_completions_be_added (he jokes) >> (though maybe add_completion_and_continue would work?). But >> I would have just assumed a good comment was enough. > > I'll have to try and sneak something like that past Doug on some other > series. :-) Heh. :-) fyi, reviewing this patchset is one of my projects for this weekend.