From: john s. <sk...@us...> - 2011-02-12 20:25:01
|
On 13/02/2011, at 4:17 AM, Alan Silverstein wrote: > > For instance now back at work I'm dealing with performance code where > the last of N bits (N >= 127 typically) must be handled specially (sent > with a special flag bit). Naturally the last bit is not handled in the > main loop, but now there's redundant code, and even inline functions are > considered to have too much overhead, If they're inlined they don't have ANY overhead. Second guessing compilers is a bad idea. > and the guy I'm working for/with > doesn't like macros because they "hide too much". Well, what are you using K&R C? You should always be compiling with C++, EVEN if you're writing C for some unknown reason. Or using Felix .. it inlines everything :) > Anyway I wish there was a standard nomenclature. There is. LT, LE, EQ, GE, GT Comes from Fortran. So names like JL_LT(..) J1_LT(..) JL_GT(..) J1_GT(..) etc.. actually I prefer lower case, but l and 1 are too close ;( So perhaps: jset_gt ( find > key in Judy Set ) jmap_le ( find key <= in Judy Map) I actually mess up "JudyFirst" regularly because I keep thinking it is like STL.begin() -- finds the first key in the container. But it doesn't. It finds the first key >=, you have to initialise the key with 0 to find the first key in the container. I use the C interfaces not the MACRO interface and there's no documentation there. The docs are with the MACROS I don't use. > One large package I > inherited long ago had an incredible, and turgid, naming convention such > that you could automatically name or decipher ANY object, with visual > type checking. Yeah, used to be recommended by pMicrosoft. -- john skaller sk...@us... |