Re: widl function pointers

[Alexandre Julliard]

Ove Kaaven  writes:
> Incidentally, that means I also reversed his indentation suppression of
> the arguments of these function pointers, but I don't see the "old"
> indentation as a problem - after all, MIDL does not suppress indentation
> of function pointer arguments, why should widl?
>
> But I could probably submit a patch with Alexandre's indentation changes
> preserved if he's really attached to it.

I don't really care about the indentation, but the reason for the
change was so that we could use the proper type in the METHODS macro
without having to add special support for escaping EOLs. Your patch
avoids this issue by declaring function pointers as void*, but I'm not
sure I agree that this is the right thing to do.

widl function pointers

[Ove Kaaven]

tor, 12.02.2004 kl. 01.51 skrev Alexandre Julliard:
> Ove Kaaven  writes:
> > Incidentally, that means I also reversed his indentation suppression of
> > the arguments of these function pointers, but I don't see the "old"
> > indentation as a problem - after all, MIDL does not suppress indentation
> > of function pointer arguments, why should widl?
> >
> > But I could probably submit a patch with Alexandre's indentation changes
> > preserved if he's really attached to it.
>
> I don't really care about the indentation, but the reason for the
> change was so that we could use the proper type in the METHODS macro
> without having to add special support for escaping EOLs.

Hmm, I see. After seeing that you had removed the generate-ICOM-macros
support and done a lot of other header cleanup stuff, maybe I was too
quick to assume this wouldn't be a problem. OK, guess I'll have to
create a new patch...