> will be exited this time. But there's another thing that is
> confusing: the NN_NULL case certainly looks like it's expecting
> to exit the loop, but that "break" will only get out of the switch
> not the loop.
You mean "NN_NOTNULL" case? if (notnull_offset >= notnull_relpos),
then following "while (notnull_offset < notnull_relpos)" does not
satisfy the continuous condition of the while loop and exits the loop.
I can add "goto" to explicitly exit the loop if we want.
> Moreover, the NN_NULL case looks like it'd fail
> to notice end-of-frame. And it's not entirely clear what the
> default case thinks it's doing either.
WinGetFuncArgInPartition() does not care about frame, no?
> In short, this loop is impossible to understand, and the lack of
> comments doesn't help. Even if it's not actually buggy, it
> needs to be rewritten in a way that helps readers and compilers
> see that it's not buggy. I think it might help to separate the
> detection of null-ness and fetching of the datum value (if required)
> from the loop control logic.
Thanks for the idea. Let me think if I could change the loop to be
easier to understand.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS K.K.
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
