lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC] ->get_link(), ->put_link() and cookies
From
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Just to make sure - that does include 13/13, presumably?

Ugh, no, I had set that aside and then forgot all about it.

I'm not sure about 13/13. I'm ok with it, but I'm not sure it's any
less confusing than the cookie was.

I like how it removes "put_link()" as a callback, but at the same time
I think it's even more abstract than the cookie was.

The main worry I have is that the naming is generic, but there's only
a single very specialized use for it. Do we expect other uses?

Because if not, I think it would be clearer if it was named to be more
concretely about putlink, and avoid the fact that it feels very
abstract.

Don't get me wrong - abstract generalized helper functions are cool.
But people aren't very abstract, and it tends to make for confusing
code when you aren't intimately familiar with the rules.

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-01-03 22:21    [W:0.062 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site