On 4 May 2015 at 17:02, Gabriela Gibson <gabriela.gib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In that case, I'll chance 'success' to 'ok', because that preserves > uniformity (and it's shorter too :) > > Whilst it seems like a small thing, I personally find consistency makes > skim reading much easier and quicker, the less one has to read(and parse), > the more brain space is left for thinking. > you are quite right here....but you will find that programmers are "lazy" and do not use the names they should use. Thanks for correcting this. Even though I am less active online at the moment (I am caught up in a battle in some higher levels, which actually might end up changing a lot for me personally), I still follow what is happening actively, and it pleased me a lot to see that you started digging into ODF: Keep up the good work !! rgds jan I. > > G > > On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Peter Kelly <pmke...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On 4 May 2015, at 8:39 pm, Gabriela Gibson <gabriela.gib...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Franz de Copenhague < > > > franzdecopenha...@outlook.com> wrote: > > > > > >> ---------------------------------------- > > >>> Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 07:59:31 +0200 > > >>> Subject: Re: Operations.c: DFGet() called from > > consumers/dfconvert/main.c > > >>> From: j...@apache.org > > >>> To: dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org > > >>> > > >>> On Monday, May 4, 2015, Gabriela Gibson <gabriela.gib...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I also would like to rename int r = 0; to the (a little more > obvious) > > >> int > > >>>> success = 0; > > >>>> > > >>>> What do you think? > > >>> > > >>> sounds logical to me. > > >> > > >> To keep the semantics you can do r = SUCCESS instead of r = 0; and > > define > > >> SUCCESS somewhere > > >> > > >> That would be a global decision --- and I think quite a good one, > since > > > this kind of pattern will come up a number of times in the code and > it's > > > nice to have uniformity. > > > > > > I'm not sure in which header file this would live in, so that it can be > > > found everywhere. > > > > > > What does everyone think about this? > > > > I think naming the variable to ‘success’ would be the better of the two. > > This is the same semantics, just more obvious to the reader. I’ve used > the > > name ‘ok’ in a number of places as it’s shorter to type, but either name > is > > clear. > > > > A SUCCESS constant introduces the risk that someone might write: > > > > if (r == SUCCESS) > > > > which is incorrect, as in C any non-zero value is considered to be true. > > The following is clearer: > > > > if (success) > > > > or > > > > if (ok) > > > > See the WordGet function in DocFormats/filters/ooxml/src/word/Word.c for > > an example. > > > > — > > Dr Peter M. Kelly > > pmke...@apache.org > > > > PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key < > http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key> > > (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966) > > > > > > > -- > Visit my Coding Diary: http://gabriela-gibson.blogspot.com/ >
