On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:59:40AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:22:06AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:37:20AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 04:07:17PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > We do not need a special flag to know if we are dealing with an array,
> > > > as we can get that data from ratio between element length and the data
> > > > size, however we do need a flag to know whether the data is stored
> > > > directly inside property_entry or separately.
> > >
> > > > - if (prop->is_array)
> > > > + if (!prop->is_inline)
> > >
> > > > - if (p->is_array) {
> > > > + if (!p->is_inline) {
> > >
> > > > - if (src->is_array) {
> > > > + if (!src->is_inline) {
> > >
> > > May we have positive conditionals instead?
> >
> > I was trying to limit the context churn. I can definitely change
> > property_get_pointer(), but the other 2 I think are better in the
> > current form.
> >
> > >
> > > > + * @is_inline: True when the property value is stored directly in
> > >
> > > I think word 'directly' is superfluous here.
> > > Or, perhaps, 'stored directly' -> 'embedded'
> >
> > I'm OK with "embedded".
> >
> > >
> > > > + * &struct property_entry instance.
> > >
> > > > + * @pointer: Pointer to the property when it is stored separately from
> > > > + * the &struct property_entry instance.
> > >
> > > 'separately from' -> 'outside' ?
> >
> > Umm, I think I prefer "separately" actually.
> >
> > >
> > > > + * @value: Value of the property when it is stored inline.
> > >
> > > 'stored inline' -> 'embedded in the &struct...' ?
> >
> > I was trying to have a link "stored inline" -> "is_inline".
> >
> > Do we want to change the flag to be "is_embedded"?
>
> In dictionaries I have
>
> embedded <-> unilateral
Are you trying to show synonym or antonym here? But I am pretty sure
"unilateral" is either.
Antonyms for our use of "embedded" are likely "detached" or
"disconnected".
> inline <-> ???
"out of line" but I still believe "stored separately" explains precisely
what we have here.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
