Comment on revision r23 in amx-netlinx-common

[amx-netli...@googlecode.com]

trueamx commented on revision r23 in project amx-netlinx-common.
Details are at
http://code.google.com/p/amx-netlinx-common/source/detail?r=23

General Comment:
I couldn't compile them standalone to see if there were any obvious bugs. I
could load them in another project and test that way, but it's a bit more
cumbersome. They work as includes with or without, but don't compile alone
without. It is simply more of a nuisance to develop without it.

The line of code does absolutely nothing for including. (It really does
nothing other than throw compiler errors - I wish it didn't exist.) You can
include it 50 times, and even though the program_name line exists, it
doesn't do anything at all. I think it looks better before the
#if_not_defined (less distracting, looks "complete"), as I am used to
having it all the way at the top, so the higher it is the more natural for
me...but it ultimately doesn't matter. What looks better to you?

For what it's worth, I am actively using this in current projects and
modules. I haven't discovered any bugs (yet).

Respond to these comments at
http://code.google.com/p/amx-netlinx-common/source/detail?r=23
--
You received this message because you starred this review, or because
your project has directed all notifications to a mailing list that you
subscribe to.
You may adjust your review notification preferences at:
http://code.google.com/hosting/settings

[amx-netli...@googlecode.com]

kim.john.burgess commented on revision r23 in project amx-netlinx-common.

Details are at
http://code.google.com/p/amx-netlinx-common/source/detail?r=23

Score: Positive

General Comment:
My only argument for having it within the compiler conditional was so that
everything within the include would only be added to the project at most
once. Although it doesn't effect compilation (or seemingly anything) having
the program_name statement grouped with the rest of the code would just
help with adhering to that (I know, my anal retentive side is showing
again).

Good to hear the libraries are being put to good use. Their predecessors
(back when they were all just baby functions sitting in my 'common.axi')
are running on a few active systems here, and the bleeding edge version is
running on a prototype system I'm currently working on. Just be warned
though, at this point they should by no means be considered stable (eg most
of the math library doesn't do any checks for special cases and may cause
some nice oddities).