On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 01:39:32PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Hi Rene, > > On 2026-05-21T13:22:19+0200, Rene Kita wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 06:20:04PM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > > On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 11:24:38AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar via Mutt-dev > > > wrote: [...] > > > > I would very much rewrite the above in two lines. I don't see a good > > > > reason to embed the assignment in the conditional (and that often leads > > > > to bugs due to accidents). I suggest: > > > > > > > > fmtlen = mutt_strlen(fmt); > > > > if (fmtlen > 0 && fmt[fmtlen - 1] == '\n') > > > > > > Sure I'll make this change. Again, in my defense, this is verbatim > > > pulled from match_body_patterns(). So although it's compact, I knew it > > > was working. > > > > I'd prefer the compact version, but that is just me. [...] > > I just wanted to > > speak up to say that such discussions are not helpful, IMHO. > > I'd like to friendly disagree. Carefully written code tends to be > safer.
I won't comment on the above as I think that discussions about terse code vs the non-terse code are not helpful. I just wanted to raise my voice to put it on the record that there are still people who prefer terse C code. This does not mean, that I don't care about carefully written code. > For example, the cast I reported is fully redundant, but it doesn't do > anything wrong. To be clear, my comment was not about the cast, casts can be dangerous and removing an unnecessary cast is the right thing. How one writes their if-statements is a matter taste and thus always arguable. Now I already said more than I wanted. :-)
