Rockbox mail archiveSubject: re: Bookmark Patch Comments
re: Bookmark Patch Comments
From: Benjamin <mailinglists_at_samuraipanda.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:02:58 -0800
I've really got to pay attention to what I read more :-). Anyway,
I'll reduce all the lines to "less then" 80 characters (as opposed
to "less then or equal").
And I didn't mean to insult anyone's intelligence by defining TBD
for the TBD question . I think that I answered the question though.
Let me know if more information is needed.
At Tuesday, 4 March 2003, you wrote:
>Thanks for the comments Daniel. Below are my responses.
>> 1. don't memset() strings without reason all over
>I didn't originally use memset, but I noticed that the code would
>fail at various points for no apparent reason. Once I memset the
>chars to 0, the problems vanished. I assumed this was because the
>memset ensured there was no extraneous data left from the declaration.
>Does it hurt to use memset?
>> 2. the comment about the bookmark format is wrong, as your
>> code uses "," as separator while the comment says
>> "*". I also think you should make the separator a proper define.
>For the life of me, I can't figure out how to edit the patch description
>on sourceforge. It's been bugging me for a while that I can't update
>it properly. Any help would be appreciated.
>I had originally defined the separator, but Björn had requested it
>not be defined for readability issues.
>> Another more minor issue is that the code rules say "less
>> than 80 columns" and you don't. In my editor it makes your
>> long lines wrap weirdly.
>I thought I had fixed them all. I'll look again and update any I
>missed for my next build. Which lines are overlapped?
>> Also, can you elaborate on what you mean with your
>> "TBD" item 1 in the bookmark.c file?
>TBD means "To Be Done" and was essentially a list of things I wanted
>to done with the code by myself or others. The big issue is the
>bookmark_play function (which I just copied the resume function and
>removed some unnecessary code); there is probably a better more
>way of doing it.
Received on 2003-03-04