Messages in this thread |  | | From | Jonathan George <> | Subject | RE: Patch to remove undefined C code | Date | Mon, 16 Oct 2000 16:54:37 -0400 |
| |
>-----Original Message----- >From: Alexander Viro [mailto:viro@math.psu.edu] [snip] > >No arguments here, but proposed fixes were remarkably ugly. Example: > >tmp = *p++; >*q = f(tmp, *p++); >return p; > >is equivalent to more idiomatic > >*q = f(p[0], p[1]); >return p+2; > >And example with copying the string up to the comma... Yuck. Legal C != >decent C.
Strongly agree. If the changes were an elegant solution to the ambiguities I never would have cared. In fact the whole reason I bothered to read the patch in the first place was that I feel strongly that something like that _was_ needed, but the solutions really seemed inferior to the original code in terms of elegance of expression. (Well some of the original code was pretty ugly too :-)
--Jonathan-- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |