On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 14:01 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote: > On May 25, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Zach Welch wrote: > > > On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 13:10 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote: > > [snip] > > > >>> Sorry Rick, but I think that you and Duane have lost this argument. > >>> You have failed to defend your position with facts. > >> > >> I could say the same of everyone else. Considering the entire issue > >> is rooted in preference, there are no hard facts to be presented. > > > > Okay, apparently I need to spell them out for you. > > > > Here are the facts: > > > > 1) They are shorter: 3 < 7 and 3 < 8. > > Agreed, but that doesn't make them better for usage. Naming every > variable in a function with a single letter is shorter too. > > > 2) most of the OpenOCD code uses the short types > > - it was developed before the C99 types could be relied upon > > - "grandfathering" these types says nothing about the rest of > > OpenOCD > > I know _why_ they are there. Keeping them by "grandfathering" does > set a precedent or at least makes the rest of the type conventions > odd. Imagine how you would document this in the developer manual: > "All types are of the form x_t where x is a descriptive name in lower- > case with words joined by underscores. The name should encapsulate > the subsystem the type is related to and what it represents. NOTE: > The types for defined-width integers are an exception to these rules."
Nothing is perfect, particular not policies. > > 3) the patch to unify the changes to short types is minor and > > finished: > > - it uses the C99 types fully, so we get all of their benefits > > - it will fix portability problems on some 64-bit architectures > > - it leaves the code more correct than it was before the patch > > > > Agreed. Of course, that doesn't mean that it is the only option or > even the option we want to go with. A similar patch can provide all > of those same benefits by using the C99 types directly but doesn't > have the "is minor and already finished" part. > > > Further, you can argue with the following assertions -- only if you > > can > > show me a patch that proves them wrong: > > Show me your patch, or let me commit mine. This debate is silly. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
