[parted-devel] [PATCH] doc: add HACKING

[Jim Meyering]

Petr Uzel wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:51:01AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Petr Uzel wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 05:43:01PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> >> FYI, I've just pushed this and expect to have to adjust it.
>> >>
>> >> Not everything in it is true yet (e.g., leading TABs),
>> >> but that should change soon.  Of course, it'll take some
>> >> work to make these style and indentation preferences sensible.
>> >>
>> > [...]
>> >>
>> >> +Minor syntactic preferences
>> >> +===========================
>> >> +[I hesitate to write this one down, because it appears to be an
>> >> + acquired taste, at least for native-English speakers.  It seems odd
>> >> + (if not truly backwards) to nearly anyone who doesn't have a strong
>> >> + mathematics background and perhaps a streak of something odd in their
>> >> + character ;-) ]
>> >> +In writing arithmetic comparisons, use "<" and "<=" rather than
>> >> +">" and ">=".  For some justification, read this:
>> >> +  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/3903/focus=4126
>> >
>> > In the referenced email (and whole thread), I don't see any reason why
>> > (1 < x) should be preferred over (x > 1), except the statement
>> > "textual order should reflect actual order" - OK, but why?
>> >
>> > And yes, (1 < x) really looks unnatural to me.
>>
>> Even when it's part of a range check?
>>
>>   1 < x && x < n
>
> I agree it might be more readable in such case. But from the HACKING I
> got the impression that the 1 < x is preferred even if it is just
> simple 'variable to constant' comparison.

It is preferred (by me), but I don't make a fuss about it in parted.
It's certainly not worth changing existing code,
but when I add new code the occasional odd looking "<"
will sneak in.

It's not worth worrying about from your perspective,
since I typically do not adjust them (or even comment on them)
in contributed patches.