On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 03:52:44PM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 14:50, Csaba Raduly <rcs...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:38:16PM +0200, Csaba Raduly wrote: > >>> Anyway, here's a revised version: > >>> --- xmlschemastypes2.c 2010-07-21 13:17:12.229467800 +0200 > >>> +++ xmlschemastypes.c 2010-07-22 14:00:05.965759600 +0200 > > (snip) > >>> + if (digits_before + digits_after == 0) > >>> + goto return1; > >> > >> Okay that patch looks fine, except for mail mangling and code format, > >> so I applied it manually, look fine, passes regtests, so pushed to git, > > > > I think Andrew Nosenko is right, it would be better to test these > > separately and not added together: > > > > if (digits_before==0 && digits_after==0) > > goto return1; > > Excuse me, but my point was not about checking counters separately, > but about there no need counters at all -- single boolean flag is > fairly enough.
Honnestly it's not a big deal, but I prefer explicit 0 checks rather than the addition hack, it's nicer to read. Actually in such code I think readability is more important than trying to optimize, the compiler will do it just fine, and that path ain't critical. On the other hand the maintainability is a serious concern, thanks to both of you :-) Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ dan...@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ xml@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
