From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lx4df-00018o-Dx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:31:16 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lx4dX-000133-6S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:31:11 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59371 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lx4dW-00012k-UE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:31:07 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f219.google.com ([209.85.220.219]:56109) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lx4dW-00008P-HE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:31:06 -0400 Received: by fxm19 with SMTP id 19so742555fxm.34 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:31:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090423191040.GI3795@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <20090423185308.GH3795@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <20090423191040.GI3795@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:31:05 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [7234] Use a more natural order From: Blue Swirl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Lennart Sorensen Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 4/23/09, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > 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. I don't think any code style document can cover all possible cases. But another approach can be used: you could try to find a precedent case where this style has been used in QEMU. > > 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. The formats and systems with varying level of brokenness reflect the centuries of weird history behind them. Only from a purely engineering standpoint that is not a valid reason for still using them.