|
From: Anton A. <ai...@ca...> - 2004-02-29 17:47:22
|
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote: > On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > Yes but potential for using the wrong one is huge, like accidentally > > using ntfs_attr_size_set() instead of ntfs_attr_datasize_set() or > > whatever... > > Supposed we chose a confusing name, compiling can indeed fail. But if we > have an easy to remember convention then this could be minimized. I am not talking compilation, I am talking data corruption! If you use the wrong macro it will still just work but corrupt the attribute. That is almost impossible to get wrong when accessing the struct by hand. > The difference between the two obfuscation methods is that, now there are > obfuscations _everywhere_, and in the other case there would be _only_ in > the headers. No it wouldn't be. The code would then be obfuscated. At the moment there is no obfuscation. The code is nice and clean IMO. Its just that our opinions on the subject differ. (-; IMO the more abstraction you have the more difficult is the code to understand, the more difficult is code to write, the higher is the barrier for new programmers. Heck I might stop working on the ntfs code if it moves to using such things because I will find it too difficult to work with and get annoyed with it... Best regards, Anton -- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @) Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK Linux NTFS maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.freenode.net WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/ |
