Re: [ping] Karel: Re: pull: hwclock 27 changes

[J William Piggott <elseifthen@gmx.com>]

On 02/03/2017 05:41 PM, Sami Kerola wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, J William Piggott wrote:
> 
>> Karel,
>> I have some work to submit that applies on top of Sami's branch:
>>
>> git://github.com/kerolasa/lelux-utiliteetit.git hwclock-jwp-reviewed
> 
> Nice to hear.
> 
>> Outside of our ongoing discussion below regarding a 'technically
>> unnecessary' cast, I think Sami's work is ready for you to consider it
>> for committing. I would be interested in your thoughts on the cast.
> 
> I had a Friday conversation with my work colleagues and majority thought 
> that 'unnecessary cast' is good thing, as explicit a cast is visual 
> reminder of type change.
> 
> We did consider maintenance burden of these casts, but counter argument 
> was found to be difficult to object. It is true that unnecessary casts 
> cause unnecessary change when either function return value or storage unit 
> changes - but such changes do not happen often. Therefore weight of visual 
> reminder is heavier than an attempt to keep potential future diffs 
> minimal.
> 
> With one thing everyone agreed, these sorts of little things should not 
> get in way too much. In short cast or don't but do not get stuck with a 
> detail like this. To be honest this is probably the best advice. While I 
> would see these sorts of type change reminders I'm happy to rip them out 
> if that is needed to move forward.

If I understand correctly, your position is that this too trivial to be
wasting time talking about. I agree, and disagree.

Using this technique in this way does trivialize it; I believe that is
in itself harmful. I will elaborate in my reply to Karel.

> 
> p.s. Branch hwclock-jwp-reviewed in my git is rebased on top of most 
> recent origin/master.
>