On 9/6/21 4:08 PM, Rémi Bernon wrote:
On 9/6/21 10:52 PM, Zebediah Figura wrote:
On 9/6/21 1:34 PM, Rémi Bernon wrote:
On 9/6/21 7:06 PM, Zebediah Figura wrote:
On 9/6/21 1:40 AM, Rémi Bernon wrote:
+ case IOCTL_HID_GET_STRING: + switch ((ULONG_PTR)stack->Parameters.DeviceIoControl.Type3InputBuffer) + { + case HID_STRING_ID_IPRODUCT: + match_id = wcsrchr(impl->device_id, '\') + 1; + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(device_strings); ++i) + if (!wcsicmp(device_strings[i].id, match_id)) + break; + if (i < ARRAY_SIZE(device_strings)) str = device_strings[i].product; + break;
Just a suggestion, really, but this might be cleaner as a helper function?
Well, I don't plan on adding anything more there, so maybe it could be split later if we need to.
I don't necessarily mean anything needs to be added, it's just that I really don't like the "for followed by if" pattern that this exemplifies.
Well, it's probably a matter of taste. I find this pattern
for (it; it != end; ++it) { if (matching) break } if (it != end) { do something with it }cleaner and more readable than the alternative that's often used:
for (it; it != end; ++it) { if (matching) { do something with it break } }especially when "do something with it" is long: the break may be easily missed.
Of course, a "find_xxx" helper could make it even clearer, but I think the former pattern can be read as an implicit "find xxx" pattern, especially for small loops.
Right, the helper was what I was advocating for.
It's probably not worth arguing about, though.