From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lx4Jr-0000Kp-1K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:10:47 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lx4Jm-0000Em-Hv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:10:46 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55607 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lx4Jm-0000EX-9A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:10:42 -0400 Received: from caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca ([129.97.134.17]:51702) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lx4Jl-0004u5-Vk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:10:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:10:40 -0400 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [7234] Use a more natural order Message-ID: <20090423191040.GI3795@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <20090423185308.GH3795@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: From: lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Blue Swirl Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:01:43PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote: > True, but it's not the style that is used here. You are of course free > to argue for using this version and even submit patches. I didn't check if it is covered by the codestyle or not for qemu. If your patch comment had said "Fix to follow code style" rather than "make natural order" I wouldn't have said anything. Natural order in this case is a bad reason for the change. Following code style is a good reason (even if the code style may then be questionable). If the code style doesn't cover it at all, I would say the change is horrible and shouldn't be done at all. The change even caused a compile failure briefly (and hence breaks git bisect) by being commited completely untested I suspect. If it didn't cause a compile failure it at least should have caused a serious warning. > We humans also tend to use base 10 arithmetic and infix notation > despite their well known shortcomings. Well only a small part of humans still use broken date formats. We do still seem to be atracted to base 10 though. And of course our time measuring system is just weird. -- Len Sorensen