Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: February 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [RFC] [Patch] Unused parameter
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [RFC] [Patch] Unused parameter

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Mike Kaufman <mkaufman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv development list <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [RFC] [Patch] Unused parameter
From: Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:02:32 +0100
Reply-to: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 10:11:59PM -0600, Mike Kaufman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 04:51:42PM +0100, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > 
> > The attached patch tags unused parameter with "/*@unused@*/" which
> > splint understands. This patch could act as a discussion base and to
> > decide case by case what should happen with the parameter: remove it
> > or keep it. For example the parameters in create_improvements_list,
> > handle_move_unit and notify_about_incoming_packet should be
> > removed. create_help_page should be removed altogether. In some other
> > cases (get_total_attack_power, build_*_time) it indicates some
> > flexibility which was never used. Should this flexibility be kept?
> > 
> 
> the pdialog should go. obviously that was there before we passed in the
> labels themselves. I'll fix that when I commit that other citydlg patch.

> The print usage should stay, only because that entire function is kinda
> useless. Truly, it's only use could be moved into civclient.c, but it's
> there as a placeholder. If it does ever get used, it'll need the
> parameter.

This went in 2 years ago and isn't used in any client. IMHO it should
be considered to remove this. The win32 client aslo doesn't have this
function.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  What's nice about GUI is that you see what you manipulate.
  What's bad about GUI is that you can only manipulate what you see.


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]