Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: bookmark patch review remarks
Re: bookmark patch review remarks
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_haxx.se>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:03:40 +0100 (CET)
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, David McIntyre wrote:
> What would be nicer about further obfuscation of variable names?
I didn't say I wanted them obfuscated.
I am of the opinion that variable or function names that are longer than
around 30 letters or so makes code less readable due to excessive size.
> Since they're all tokenized anyway at compile time, why not make them as
> long and clear as to their function as possible?
I don't think names are necessarily better or more descriptive just because
they are very long.
> Or at least provide a cheat sheet.
Each function should have a function header describing its functionality. You
can't expect every function to have a full description in its name anyway.
Thus, there needs to be a middle way: a good enough name that says something
about its functionality and then a good description comment header.
> Perhaps a STYLE document should be drafted and checked in at the top of the
docs/CONTRIBUTING is as much as we have. It doesn't mention symbol names in
other ways than that they should be lowercase unless they're preprocessor
Besides, my remarks are just my opinions. Others are free to think
-- Daniel Stenberg -- http://rockbox.haxx.se/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/Received on 2003-12-10