Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > These perfeclty good patches from 2014 weren't picked with no good
> > reason.
>
> These are safe no-op changes, but that does not mean they are good
> patches.
They are not good patches because they are no-op, they are good changes
because they correct the flow of the code to match the flow in which
most people think.
18 is younger than Mary
is not a sentence most people would agree make sense.
> It goes against Documentation/CodingGuidelines to bring it
> back again now, which is a good enough reason not to look at them.
These are not style issues. Refactoring code to make it easier to
understand goes beyond style.
Refactoring this:
static int is_same_remote(struct remote *remote)
{
struct remote *fetch_remote = remote_get(NULL);
return (!fetch_remote || fetch_remote == remote);
}
int same_remote = is_same_remote(remote);
To this:
int same_remote = remote == remote_get(NULL);
Is more than just style.
But suit yourself. Sooner or later somebody is going to fix these
glaring mistakes. And they are mistakes [1].
Yoda conditions are widely criticized for compromising readability by
increasing the cognitive load of reading the code.
Cheers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoda_conditions#Criticism
--
Felipe Contreras
