On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>
> I realized that the main thing that took me a while to grok when I was
> reading this code was that blank_lines was really only used as a boolean
> value, even though it was updated with "+=". That's the main information
> that I'd like
On 08/04/2016 01:50 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>> On 08/04/2016 12:11 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Michael Haggerty
>>> wrote:
[...]
+
+ /*
+*
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 04:50:46PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> I was not asking for undoing these, but giving short cryptic answers myself.
> ;)
> While I agree the variable names are way better than before, the use of while
> instead of for (and then doing another final ++ after the loop) exte
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> On 08/04/2016 12:11 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Michael Haggerty
>> wrote:
>>> Write things out a bit longer but less cryptically. Add more comments.
>>
>> By less cryptic you mean in Git coding style ;)
>>
On 08/04/2016 12:11 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
>> Write things out a bit longer but less cryptically. Add more comments.
>
> By less cryptic you mean in Git coding style ;)
> The original author (do we want to cc Davido?) may disagree.
Davi
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> Write things out a bit longer but less cryptically. Add more comments.
By less cryptic you mean in Git coding style ;)
The original author (do we want to cc Davido?) may disagree.
> +
> + /*
> +
Write things out a bit longer but less cryptically. Add more comments.
Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty
---
I find the loops in the old code, with unfamiliar patterns of embedded
increment/decrement operators, confusing, and I think that writing
things out a little bit more verbosely (and with mor
7 matches
Mail list logo
