On 08/10/2017 05:24 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote: > 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? I still don't like the argument-counting trick. But avoiding it seems even more painful. So let's go with your original approach with the argument-counting trick. At least it's buried and folks likely won't have to look at it with any regularity.
jeff