On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * Stupid double negatives in remove_file; it somehow manages
>> + * to repeatedly mess me up. So, just for myself:
>> + * 1) update_wd iff !ren_src_was_dirty.
>> + * 2) no_wd iff !update_wd
>> + * 3) so, no_wd == !!ren_src_was_dirty == ren_src_was_dirty
>> + */
>
> Not sure iff this comment is at the right place and is a good addition to
> the code base.
Fair enough, and I should apologize for letting my frustration come
through there. However, what if I replaced the first two lines of the
comment with:
"Because the double negatives somehow keep confusing me..."
so that it reads:
/*
* Because the double negatives somehow keep confusing me...
* 1) update_wd iff !ren_src_was_dirty.
* 2) no_wd iff !update_wd
* 3) so, no_wd == !!ren_src_was_dirty == ren_src_was_dirty
*/
Even if my wording was suboptimal, the rest of the comment did seem
pretty important because I messed up the line after the comment
multiple times. (You'd think that the odds of getting it right should
be 50/50 and that a simple inversion would fix it, so one could only
mess the line up once, but I'm apparently special). And then I came
back to look at it later and was still confused. For some reason, I
seem to need the longer explanation.
> However it hints at the underlying issue of a bad API that is provided
> by remove_file ?
I'd definitely agree with that.
