From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: lm@mcvoy.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 13:42:29 -0700
Subject: [TUHS] early cc variable and function names
In-Reply-To: <1413578228.125790.180311153.48CF1319@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <20141017022913.7A77818C092@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
 <20141017024049.GI17227@mercury.ccil.org>
 <20141017025242.GH6963@mcvoy.com>
 <1413578228.125790.180311153.48CF1319@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <20141017204229.GA4249@mcvoy.com>

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 04:37:08PM -0400, random832 at fastmail.us wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014, at 22:52, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > abc.st_size
> > 
> > Huh, abc is a struct stat.
> > 
> > I get that it was a bug and needed to be fixed but I wish that everyone 
> > still pretended that it was one namespace, makes code so much easier to
> > read.
> 
> I'm not sure what your design is that you're more than a screen away
> from either its declaration, a stat call, or the fact that it's got size
> _and_ mode _and_ mtime etc.
> 
> And if you do that, why stop there? Why not require the type to be
> repeated to dereference any pointer?

Hey, everyone is welcome to their own opinion and it doesn't have to match
mine.  I review a lot of code, a lot of code that I didn't write.  Lots of
times the review is in a web browser that doesn't know how to tag to the
definition.  Sure I can clone the repo and make tags and tag to it but for
small reviews there is no need.

I do a bunch of code reviews every day.  foo.size is a lot less helpful
than foo.vfs_size or whatever.

Your mileage may vary, where I work we optimize for the reader not for
the writer.  That's how it is when you work for me.  When I work for 
you then your rules win :)
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	     lm at mcvoy.com             http://www.mcvoy.com/lm