Hi, Javier Martín <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > There is, however, one point in which I keep my objection: comparisons >> > between a variable and a constant should be of the form CONSTANT == >> > variable and not in the reverse order, since an erroneous but quite >> > possible change of == for = results in a compile-time error instead of a >> > _extremely_ difficult to trace runtime bug. Such kind of bugs are quite >> > excruciating to find in userspace applications within an IDE, so I can't >> > even consider the pain to debug them in a bootloader. >> >> I understand your concern, nevertheless, can you please change it? > You understand my concern, but seemingly do not understand that in order > to conform to the Holy Coding Style you are asking me to write code that > can become buggy (and with a very hard to trace bug) with a simple > deltion! (point: did you notice that last word _without_ a spelling > checker? Now try to do so in a multithousand-line program). BTW, your patch still contains this, can you please change it before I go over it again? I know people who claim that this code will become buggy because we write it in C. Should we start accepting patches to rewrite GRUB in Haskell or whatever? :-) Really, as a maintainer I should set some standards and stick to it. Of course not everyone will like me and sometimes I have to act like a jerk. But I rather be a jerk, than committing code that do not meet my expectations. But please understand, this contribution is highly appreciated. However, we want to have something maintainable for the far future as well :-) -- Marco _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
