Rick Altherr wrote:
I personally find the excerpted line confusing and clunky. I _do_
know what it does, but only because I've written the exact same code
to handle the error cases returned by stroul. Without seeing the rest
of the code, here's what I don't like about it:
- okay is a
Rick Altherr wrote:
I personally find the excerpted line confusing and clunky. I _do_
know what it does, but only because I've written the exact
same code
to handle the error cases returned by stroul. Without
seeing the rest
of the code, here's what I don't like about it:
-
On Jun 17, 2009, at 12:32 AM, Michael Schwingen wrote:
- If you are testing that a variable is non-NULL, write that.
Similarly for a test for NULL. Taking the short-cut just makes it
less clear what you are doing and why. Besides, it isn't necessarily
guaranteed that NULL will always be 0.
-Original Message-
From: openocd-development-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:openocd-
development-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Zach Welch
Sent: dinsdag 16 juni 2009 1:19
To: open...@duaneellis.com
Cc: Openocd-Dev
Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] Nit to pick with recent
On Jun 15, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 21:14 -0400, Duane Ellis wrote:
bool okay = *str !*end ULLONG_MAX != *ul;
In my long career, I have seen too many poor souls - including my
self
become the victim of even my own seemingly simple attempts to
zack Seriously? You think that my efforts have increased the obfuscation?
No, in generally it is _fantastically_ better. But as they say, no good
deed goes unpunished. As I said this is a nit.
zach I hope that you can engage in a rational discussion about this
topic.
Simple. Please
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 17:01 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
On Jun 15, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 21:14 -0400, Duane Ellis wrote:
bool okay = *str !*end ULLONG_MAX != *ul;
In my long career, I have seen too many poor souls - including my
self
On Jun 15, 2009, at 6:58 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 17:01 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
On Jun 15, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 21:14 -0400, Duane Ellis wrote:
bool okay = *str !*end ULLONG_MAX != *ul;
In my long career, I have seen too
bool okay = *str !*end ULLONG_MAX != *ul;
screaming-rant
In my long career, I have seen too many poor souls - including my self
become the victim of even my own seemingly simple attempts to reduce the
levels of () and {}. Yes, there are cases where it gets a little too
deep, but
