On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 08:21:12PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 05/07/2022 14:11, Johan Hovold wrote: > > Ok, so you want to flatten this by repeating also the register > > descriptions? > > > > That wouldn't hurt readability as much, but doing so would be more error > > prone as it's easy to miss adding a new compatible in every group of > > conditionals and there's no else clause to catch the mistake. > > > > Right know the logic is > > > > if dual-lane > > items = 6 > > else > > items = 3 or 4 > > if single-lane-exception > > items = 3 > > else > > items = 4 > > > > Flattening this gives > > > > if dual-lane > > items = 6 > > if single-lane-normal > > items = 4 > > if single-lane-exception > > items = 3 > > > > Which means that every compatible must now be listed in one of the > > conditionals. > > Yes, because it's explicit and easy to read. Handling compatibles in > 'else' makes it opposite - one cannot use grep and cannot easily find > what is actually covered by maxItems:4 (you need to check all 7 > compatibles to find what is not covered here). I'll go with that then. Johan
