On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Jeff Law wrote: > >> The _5th macro isn't that bad either, appart from using reserved namespace > >> identifiers (it really should be something like qsort_5th and the arguments > >> shouldn't start with underscores). > > > > I didn't understand what Jeff found "ugly" about it; I wonder what epithets > > would be applied then to more, ahem, unusual parts of GCC. > I doubt anyone would want to hear what I might say about other code. > I'm sure I wouldn't want my kids reading how I might refer to certain > parts of GCC.
Imho it's no good to just say "ugly" in patch review without any further elaboration, it only serves to provide a minor chilling effect, telling the contributor they haven't done good enough (for your personal taste) without informing them where/how they could have improved. More importantly, am I correct in understanding that at this point all remaining changes are reviewed and approved, and I can go ahead with preparing vec::qsort -> vec::sort mass-renaming patch and rebasing the others on top of it? Or is the original approach with argument-counting trick still under consideration? Thanks. Alexander