On Saturday, July 22, 2017 12:31:14 AM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Saturday, July 22, 2017 12:19:51 AM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > On Friday, July 21, 2017 06:27:39 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > >> >> I prefer more self-explaining labels, though it's minor here > > ... > > >> > But if there's more to it, just please let me know. :-) > >> > >> "Choose label names which say what the goto does or why the goto exists. > >> An > >> example of a good name could be ``out_free_buffer:`` if the goto frees > >> ``buffer``. > >> Avoid using GW-BASIC names like ``err1:`` and ``err2:``, as you would have > >> to > >> renumber them if you ever add or remove exit paths, and they make > >> correctness > >> difficult to verify anyway." > > > > This is a totally made-up argument in this particular case. > > > > Both of the functions in question are 1 screen long and you can *see* what > > happens in there without even scrolling them. > > > > Second, the subsequent patch actually *does* add a label to one of the > > without > > renamling the existing one or such. > > > > "out" pretty much represents the purpose of the goto in both cases and > > making > > the label longer doesn't make it any better. > > That's why I put "though it's a minor here". > > You can read my first message as "you might consider change label > names if you like the idea".
Fair enough. I clearly don't like it, then. :-)
