Re: lynx-dev coding style, ifdefs

[Leonid Pauzner]

16-Oct-99 12:40 Vlad Harchev wrote:
>>               foo(2);
>>           };

>  Nice thing! I forgot about this. But from performance reasons, your variant
> is slightly worse (since compilers optimize in basic blocks, if NO_BAR is
> defined, extra basic block will be created, that will increase code size,
> execution time). Of course, gcc is smart to optimize accross basic blocks, but
> anyway it gives worse code even on gcc I believe.

Inadequate thing: you save few [nano]seconds of compilation time
but spend hours in reading/writing to/from lynx-dev
and assume everyone want follow that way.

Proper comments in the code takes few minutes from the author
of the contribution when the patch is ready.
A good style of programming bring comments
even *before* the actual writing of the code -
that is your saving of time, not only ours as you think.

> inet-access - I can't imagine such people. As for the last sentence - this is
> an unreachable target. I'm not so altruistic to spent a lot of time
> on cleanup and documentation.