|
From: Szakacsits S. <sz...@si...> - 2006-08-15 00:00:47
|
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
|
