> Would renaming it "delta_less" help? Does that make it two chunks
> cognitively? deltatimeless is pretty undigestible. "before" is a
> really nice name but it doesn't flag what kind of time is being
> considered. Maybe "sooner" is better considering that deltatimes are
> (I think) normally in the future). Naming is important and tricky.
>
>
The more I look at this code the more I think deltatime_t should be reduce
to:
typedef struct { intmax_t ns; } deltatime_t;
and we simply accept that .ms (milliseconds; 1/1000s) is "public" so that:
deltatime_t f(deltatime_t a, deltatime b) {
if (a.ms > b.ms) ...
return deltatime_ms(a.ms + b.ms);
}
is acceptable.
My suggestion: keep deltaless (however spelled (but not dataless)).
> Rewrite individual calls if and only if it improves readability. New
> calls should use the most readable. See where we get after a suitable
> period.
> _______________________________________________
> Swan-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Swan-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
