On 24 April 2017 at 11:56, Snobb wrote:
> Completely agree with all points. I generally prefer inline function and
> const variables over defines if I can help it.
General guidance is not the question here. The suggestion for syntax
sugar would only justify a define in the actual case of simplif
+1
Completely agree with all points. I generally prefer inline function and const
variables over defines if I can help it.
On 24/04/17 10:14am, Laslo Hunhold wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:01:31 +0200
> Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>
> Hey Anselm,
>
> > I'd prefer a define instead of a one-line fun
Urm, I'd prefer a local pointer, but I figure a modern compiler should
be perfectly capable of deciding that intermediate results and
pointers should be stored/cached for reuse. Which should sufficiently
illustrate that these particular lines of code are perfectly fine.
cheers!
mar77i
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:01:31 +0200
Anselm R Garbe wrote:
Hey Anselm,
> I'd prefer a define instead of a one-line function.
a macro does not bring any advantages to the table, but some
disadvantages. It makes it harder to analyze the binaries when debug
symbols are compiled in, because everythin
On 23 April 2017 at 20:14, Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:54:31PM +1000, Daniel Cousens wrote:
>>I have found this pattern to take up significant parts of my time when
>>rebasing my changes onto suckless/master, Â such that I feel the
>>following patch will both i
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:44:12 +0200
Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
Hey Hiltjo,
> Don't make it const, but agree with the rest.
it may be a minute detail, but is there a reason why we do not declare
"canarrange" as static? Is it so that external patches can use it as
well in separate c-files?
With best
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:14:36AM +1000, Daniel Cousens wrote:
>Indeed, � apologies for the style issues.
>The argument could probably be const too.
>
>On 24 Apr. 2017 04:32, "Laslo Hunhold" <[1]d...@frign.de> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 20:14:01 +0200
> Hiltjo Posthuma
Indeed, apologies for the style issues.
The argument could probably be const too.
On 24 Apr. 2017 04:32, "Laslo Hunhold" wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 20:14:01 +0200
> Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
>
> Hey Hiltjo,
>
> wouldn't it also be better to remove the space between function name
> and list of a
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 20:14:01 +0200
Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
Hey Hiltjo,
wouldn't it also be better to remove the space between function name
and list of arguments? The current patch is inconsistent with the
dwm-style.
> > +int canarrange (Monitor* m) {
-->
> > +int
> > +canarrange(Monitor* m)
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:54:31PM +1000, Daniel Cousens wrote:
>I have found this pattern to take up significant parts of my time when
>rebasing my changes onto suckless/master, � such that I feel the
>following patch will both increase readability, � reduce diffs and
>overall inc
I have found this pattern to take up significant parts of my time when
rebasing my changes onto suckless/master, such that I feel the following
patch will both increase readability, reduce diffs and overall increase
code quality :).
Thoughts?
From 160dbe6eaa8fccc1eb5c9cde036b9256c2e820c5 Mon Se
11 matches
Mail list logo
