[PATCH] Re: DBUS_ERROR_INIT

[Havoc Pennington]

Simon McVittie wrote:
> Well, if you're sufficiently attached to this coding style to not care
> about the unnecessary function calls, I'll omit the last patch...

I would characterize my sentiment more as undecided, one of those cases 
where there are arguments either way, but the pros and cons in each 
direction are so minor it's hard to get excited ;-)

I suppose the argument for dbus_error_init() is cosmetic and the one for 
DBUS_ERROR_INIT is functional (though not importantly functional), so 
the DBUS_ERROR_INIT change makes sense to me this morning. Go for it.

Havoc