[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] coding style addendum
Tommy Reynolds wrote:
>> References:
>> [1] ``The Elements of Programming Style'' by Kernighan
>> and Plauger, 2nd ed, 1988, McGraw-Hill.
> Keep in mind the date here. Prior to this time, subroutines were the

Yes, I'm aware of the date. AFAIR, 1 ed. is circa 1974, so in 14 years
I'd say the principles were still effective.

``Prior to this time'' you probably meant prior to 1974.

> functional abstractions. Using your argument that the example code
> hides an "implementation", it's difficult to conceive of a code example
> that hids neither its data nor its implementation.

So why should you change a definition to allow for a specific case?
Isn't a function de facto an implementation detail and thus encapsulating
the actual implementation (i.e. it's workings).
Anyway this is not important and is just formalisms.

My whole point was to put down in text file, the already practiced rule
of thinking out data representations, since this has direct effect on
the complexity of the code (i.e. the choice of data represenation).

I'm sure you know which example I'm thinking of.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.053 / U:35.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site