[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Booleans
From: |
Jarek Czekalski |
Subject: |
Re: Booleans |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Dec 2013 08:39:14 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0 |
W dniu 2013-12-16 00:03, Paul Eggert pisze:
I did it primarily because Stefan suggested that I
do so, while changing int to bool etc.
Was it a private discussion? I can't remember seeing that. I hope it was
not, see "Avoid private discussions". [1]
It would be an odd style to use '0' for false
preprocessor expressions, while using 'false' for false
expressions everywhere else.
For a c programmer while (1) is extremely readable and obvious, and
short. While we are in c and not in Python or Lisp, I would follow the c
convention. In places like this one, where introducing bool gives no
benefits.
>should have been a separate commit, as
>it is not a mechanical replacement, far from it.
It was a judgment call. Perhaps I should have separated it
out, though it's no big deal. It was a case of an int value
being used as a boolean with values 0 and -1.
I think it is a deal worth a while. It's very hard to locate a change in
a commit that is 221k long. Such long commits should be limited to
mechanical changes. Putting several different changes in such a long
commit makes it impossible to review. Now it's time for the most
important question: do you want your revisions to be reviewed? See
"Practice Conspicuous Code Review" [2].
Why this single change should be a separate commit? I would justify it
being a change of the interface of an internal library. An advanced
Emacs user may have more calls to this internal api. Would he expect
that the interface was changed seeing a label "Use bool for boolean" in
the commit message? I could even give reasons for not changing at all
this interface, but maybe it's not worth arguing.
Thanks
Jarek
[1] http://producingoss.com/en/producingoss.html#avoid-private-discussions
[2] http://producingoss.com/en/producingoss.html#code-review