On 12/10/2015 03:09 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:10:42AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> Le 09/12/2015 06:54, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
>>> Regarding the following code:
>>>
>>> -----
>>> void Text::selectWord(Cursor & cur, word_location loc)
>>> {
>>> LBUFERR(this == cur.text());
>>> CursorSlice from = cur.top();
>>> CursorSlice to = cur.top();
>>> getWord(from, to, loc);
>>> -----
>>>
>>> It is not easy to know whether "to" and "from" are equal to each other
>>> because
>>> cur.top() might return something different the second time. For readability
>>> purposes, I would prefer either
>> I do not really see why this confuses you actually.
> Well, since I have a bad memory I always try to write code imagining
> "what if I did not have any inside information". A newcommer does not
> know that the initializations of 'to' and 'from' are useless (neither
> would he under my proposal).
And it's even more confusing because the initiation of from DOES matter,
whereas that of to does not matter.
> A newcommer also does not know what top()
> does. Maybe it pops off something, and thus changes the underlying list
> so that the second call to it returns something different. My proposal
> at least clarifies this.
>
> I don't care that much. I was just curious what others thought. This was
> a poor example. I should have cut off the "getWord" call in my quote so
> as just to focus on what the reader would think of 'from' and 'to'.
At the very least, if the value of to is irrelevant, then it should just be:
CursorSlice to;
Then it's not potentially misleading as to why we're passing the same
value twice.
Richard
