On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Iustin Pop <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:29:51PM +0000, Guido Trotter wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Iustin Pop <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 01:29:25PM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:31:17AM +0000, Guido Trotter wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Iustin Pop <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > Let me try to explain in words what is happening, and you can then >> >> > > suggest a better name: >> >> > > >> >> > > - at first, we have old_pnode on which the instance lives, and >> >> > > new_pnode >> >> > > on which the instance will live >> >> > > - we "remove" the instance from its old_pnode, which gives us the new >> >> > > version of the old_pnode, which I called old_pnode' >> >> > > - we "add" the instance to its new_pnode, which gives us the new >> >> > > version >> >> > > of new_pnode, called new_pnode' >> >> > > >> >> > > I thought of calling them old_pnode, old_pnode_after_remove, >> >> > > new_pnode, >> >> > > new_pnode_after_add, but this seemed a bit "silly". >> >> > > >> >> > > I'm fine with any names, for the record, just don't know how to name >> >> > > them nicely. >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > I'm fine with ' as long as it's clear what we mean. >> >> > Perhaps we can document in our styleguide when and how to use ' >> >> > variables? (as the new state of an entity after a transformation >> >> > happening inside a function). >> >> >> >> Yes, definitely - I picked this naming style up from the fact that it is >> >> indeed the customary use. >> >> >> >> I'll update the wiki then, thanks! >> > >> > Wiki updated, please take a look :) >> > >> >> Thanks. This makes it clearer although I'm not sure we should allow >> "that many" updated values, as it'd be almost a way of "working >> around" some language functionality. >> So I'd be even more strict into limiting them. But at least now it's >> clear, thanks. > > Oh, I'm fine to limit; 3 max 4 is fine, above that clearly you're doing > the wrong thing; feel free to update. > > Anyway, where does that leave this particular patch/interdiff? >
LGTM, with the interdiff Thanks, Guido
