On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Kaartic Sivaraam
wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 14:50 -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Kaartic Sivaraam
>> wrote:
>> > The ad-hoc patches to add new arguments to a function when needed
>> > resulted in the related arguments not being
On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 14:50 -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Kaartic Sivaraam
> wrote:
> > The ad-hoc patches to add new arguments to a function when needed
> > resulted in the related arguments not being close to each other.
> > This misleads the person reading the c
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Kaartic Sivaraam
wrote:
> The ad-hoc patches to add new arguments to a function when needed
> resulted in the related arguments not being close to each other.
> This misleads the person reading the code to believe that there isn't
> much relation between those argu
The ad-hoc patches to add new arguments to a function when needed
resulted in the related arguments not being close to each other.
This misleads the person reading the code to believe that there isn't
much relation between those arguments while it's not the case.
So, re-order the arguments to keep
4 matches
Mail list logo