From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:08:03 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] posix-clock: Use an unsigned data type for a variable Message-Id: <5676A833.4090700@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <56766488.9050402@users.sourceforge.net> <5676A399.4080007@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Julia Lawall Cc: LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Richard Cochran >>>> Reuse the type from this poll call instead. >>> >>> Why use uint when the function return type it unsigned int? >> >> Do you prefer to express the type modifier once more there? > > I don't know what the sentence means, Can it be a matter of taste if the key word "unsigned" should be repeated in such an use case? > but I think that the type should be referenced in a consistent manner. How do involved software designers and developers prefer to achieve data type consistency here? Which kind of naming convention will get priority? >>> On the other hand, why is the function return type unsigned int >>> when there is a return of a negative constant? >> >> This implementation detail can trigger further software development >> considerations, can't it? > > It would seem reasonable to address all of the signed/unsigned issues > related to the function return value at once. Would you like to extend another evolving script for the semantic patch language? I imagine that the general issue around the exception handling will cause too many software development challenges to tackle them "at once". Regards, Markus