On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:41:46PM +0100, Olliver Schinagl wrote: > On 25-02-2019 18:25, Mark Brown wrote:
> > If you find you need to describe what the fields are it would be much > > more constructive to add a comment at the top of the table saying what > > they are. As things are this isn't helping anyone - as a big pile of > > defines it's hard to read the values without context for how they're > > used and if you're looking at the table you can't tell what the > > regulator actually supports without going and decoding the defines. > Then the name of the define should be more constructive, which imo they > are reasonably? But as everything with programming, naming things is the > he hardest part, right? I really don't think that's it - I think that sometimes a data table is just a data table. There are some coding styles that work to avoid having raw numbers anywhere in code outside of defines at all costs but I do think that goes too far in cases like this where the name of the define is at some level just going to summarize what should go in a given slot in a table which adds little.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
