On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 13:53 -0600, Nathan Lynch wrote: > On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:00:37 -0800 > Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 16:57 -0800, Dan Smith wrote: > > > DH> Did you convince Nathan that this ends up being a good idea? > > > > > > Technically he hasn't seen this version, but my hopes are not high > > > that he will change his mind. If the feedback is that they're not > > > liked, I'll happily remove them. > > > > I just figure if Nathan feels that strongly that we'll encounter more > > people who feel even more so. So, I was curious if he changed his mind > > somehow. > > No, not really, sorry. > > I understand why it's nice for the developer to have this sort of > helper, but I don't think it's nice for someone trying to review or > debug the code. That's funny. I've only reviewed and debugged these things, but I don't think I've actually written any code that would have used these macros! As someone trying to debug and review, I love how this looks. It gets the point across much more clearly about what is going on to me as a reviewer and I appreciate that. memcpy()s contain a lot of gunk that my brain can't parse easily, but this is rather clean, and it *HALVES* the number of lines of code I have to look at. > Surely discussing these macros has already consumed more developer time > than they would ever save? :) That's exactly my point. We're not trying to save development time here at all. My argument is that this reduces the maintenance and review burden. -- Dave _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
