On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Lubomir I. Ivanov <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25 November 2015 at 20:01, K. "pestophagous" Heller > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Lubomir I. Ivanov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> currently add_single_dive() assumes a safe index. >>> i think that add_single_dive() should not be touched, but instead the >>> mobile app should be fixed (models bug?). >>> >> >> That sounds reasonable, but i would mention the following: >> >> 1. if add_single_dive is going to assume a safe index, then we should >> add an assert. an assertion failure would have been preferable to >> varied and mysterious crashes after the call. >> >> 2. the ability to call with -1 is also a feature. currently, if you >> want to add a dive to the *front* of the list, you pass 0. But if you >> want to add it to the *end* of the list, you need to know the size of >> the table (so you can pass the table size as your targeted insertion >> point). Passing 0 to mean "prepend" does not require knowledge of the >> current table size. So, using -1 as a shorthand for "append" provides >> a similar feature, then. no need to know the table size. >> > > it's probably better to have the feature, over the assert(). > then the mobile app should make sure if it really wants to add to the > back of the list with a negative value. > > lubomir > --
cool. agreed. i do want to continue examining what the mobile app is doing with 'Add Dive.' the add-dive mobile option needs work. but i had to get past the crashing first :) /K _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
