Hi, On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 04:24:17PM +0000, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:59 PM Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 04:41:55AM -0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 04:31:20AM -0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 12:55:38AM +0400, > > marcandre.lureau@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Use shorter line, use the common "d" variable for private data > > access, > > > > > > > add brackets to ease reading the inner block vs the condition, > > remove > > > > > > > needless != NULL. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd lean towards NACK for this one, one letter variable names is > > imo > > > > > > very bad for readability. I know this is widespread in the > > spice-gtk > > > > > > codebase, but I'd at least rather not expand that usage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may rename it "priv", but then you lost the benefit of being > > really > > > > > short. > > > > > > > > Being really short is a benefit? This is where we are going to > > disagree :) > > > > > > Well, in an proper OO language, you wouldn't even have it, it would be > > like magic! > > > > Maybe, maybe not, 'priv' members in C++ classes are not that unusual > > ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opaque_pointer#C.2B.2B ) > > > > > So yes, I like private member being accessed with a very short > > > variable in C. If it's use consistently, there is very little > > > confusion possible imho. > > > > As I said, we are not going to agree there :) "If it's used > > consistently, it does not cause confusion", does not mean that's a good > > thing :) This just makes things harder to read for someone not knowing > > the convention, and for no great reason (saving at most a few seconds of > > typing?) > > > > Ok you don't like that single letter variable, but as maintainer I prefer > consistency, even though I don't have written rules, I am not strict > either. Maybe we should be more strict in order to spend less time discussing code style. > If you feel strongly about it, I can drop the patch. I suggest you > send a patch to change it if you think it will improve readability > anyway. > > thanks I also don't like one letter variables but you have +1 here to keep consistency as this is the only access to display->priv that is not done by 'd'. My vote would be for 'priv' but in the whole code base, that would be a clear variable name for *private* structure (and as another great french hacker said to me once, we are not paying for characters - 'priv' should be short enough...) I'm reviewing your series, I'll reply back soon about it. Cheers,
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel