Re: [Linux-NTFS-cvs] CVS: ntfsprogs/ntfsprogs ntfsinfo.c, 1.145, 1.146

[Szakacsits S. <sz...@si...>]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> 
> So why did you say that my description and criticims of your 
> getters/setters had nothing to do with what I described? 

Where did I write it is has __nothing__ to do with it? This is what I 
wrote:

Yura:  If this setters/getters abstraction will be like Anton described,
Szaka: No, it's not.

That's all I can find and that's what I've meant.

> And if that is all you are planning than no thanks.  It is a completely 
> unnecessary performance hit I am not willing to take.  If you still think 
> I am misunderstanding you then you will have to give a lot more details 
> than that email you reference above so I can understand what you mean...

Talk, talk, talk just because you keep misunderstanding and confusing 
things. How about some work getting done? For this year this is the commit 
statistic:

    443 szaka (including index code)
     52 yura
     39 antona
      5 uvman

I think you barely do anything else just setting back the project for quite 
a while. I really hope you don't do this intentionally.
 
> To help you out here is what I wrote that you said I was misunderstanding:

Thanks.
 
> <quote>
> That is your opinion.  I don't like this "setters and getters" abstraction 
> at all.  I think it is completely unnecessary code obfuscation and makes 
> the code unreadable and unmaintanable.  cpu_to_le* and le*_to_cpu is 
> correct and shows what is going on and nothing else is needed.  

And the code sometimes has different macros for the same member. Or 
consistently used badly.

> Sometimes we do _not_ want conversion because we are reading a value and 
> then writing it directly and the conversion just wastes CPU cycles.  

Then just don't use it. Or use a different macro.

> Further we compare values in little endian when comparing for equality 
> but we compare in cpu endianness when we compare for less/greater than, 
> etc.  

Same.

> And you said that your getters/setters implementation is nothing like what 
> my thinking is but it seems it is exactly like what I am thinking you are 
> wanting to do.

I don't remember this "nothing like", really. I've never meant it, so I 
shouldn't have ever wrote it. 

	Szaka