Mail Archives: geda-user/2020/10/23/21:14:36

X-Authentication-Warning: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=Nacja0P4 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=5f937b1f
a=+cj0cO56Fp8x7EdhTra87A==:117 a=NOlTRRhvuAsbYEG8eAcWmg==:17
a=9+rZDBEiDlHhcck0kWbJtElFXBc=:19 a=dLZJa+xiwSxG16/P+YVxDGlgEgI=:19
a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=afefHYAZSVUA:10 a=a1KZgU7cAAAA:8 a=Mj1Xp5F7AAAA:8
a=S7CkZx7hJSqJZ4CAu8YA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=ng0hpkU2jXKPaRTLMVYJ:22
X-SECURESERVER-ACCT: glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:
bh=kyAJdh0xwt96J8MeN6gBVNuvzBzyZA7MiJZo6dFT1ms=; b=K7FSNkHAg5ljS8+ZwVdZjAysfe
Subject: Re: [geda-user] submitted a new patch
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References: <14f9e862-8ee0-4432-23b6-06e94215baa4 AT epilitimus DOT com>
<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 21 DOT 2010120958150 DOT 2535 AT nimbus>
<32bfe083-3604-b747-030a-48a13e2b1074 AT epilitimus DOT com>
<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 21 DOT 2010122312420 DOT 8245 AT nimbus>
<7c133ba2-5b09-91f3-808f-9f444c625278 AT epilitimus DOT com>
<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 21 DOT 2010151343310 DOT 1527 AT nimbus>
<aa7c0456-a606-be86-58c4-b8352cc66127 AT epilitimus DOT com>
<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 21 DOT 2010231526280 DOT 12318 AT nimbus>
<7df6cee0-b96c-1753-29a6-58026eeb991b AT epilitimus DOT com>
<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 21 DOT 2010240119430 DOT 5003 AT nimbus>
From: "Glenn (glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 16:53:31 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/60.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2010240119430.5003@nimbus>
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id: glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com
X-Authenticated-Sender: glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfBp6P5qyiKboOdZ4ugjSyw9jKlEEyPzWFozBzj/Ab8e4Ir9XlnAn1VyT3OYH7oC7MyaO851dFb22MdM+J9O74xK9GjWwUEUImcvae+wMNAoz7x6JKjp4
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com

Roland Lutz wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2020, Glenn (glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com) [via
> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>> Okay so the newline was there because of the debug message you removed.
>> It pushed the "Checking for title box" message to the next line.
> Oh, I see.  So debug-spew requires a newline at the end of the string
> if a newline is supposed to be printed; it's just missing from two
> messages in this function.  This hasn't been noticed so far because
> the next message starts with a newline.
> This is actually one of the cases where it makes sense to submit a
> second patch fixing the newlines.  It's normally preferred to not
> change small things like whitespace unless necessary; however, in this
> case, it's clearly an oversight (see commit 86f100d).
I will actually code that way sometimes as it can save a few bytes. Not
something that matters in most machines these days but when working with
limited memory it can be a useful trick. I would guess that the original
author was probably doing it out of habit for that reason. Old habits
die hard.
>> I think the comment you are referring to was actually my rewrite of the
>> comment to include the fact that a specific title was permitted.  So
>> here I would argue that the change was relevant, but actually to the
>> previous patch that added the spice-title rather than this one.
> Extending the top comment is totally fine (and good practice).
> I was referring to the removal of the comment ";; If the schematic
> contains a spice-title device" a few lines below.  Sure, it's a kind
> of obvious thing to state, and maybe it was bad practice to place the
> comment in the first place; but once it's there, it should only be
> removed if there's reason to do so--like the piece of code changed,
> the comment isn't accurate any more, or you are the original author of
> the comment and feel like it.  (Don't spend too much thought about
> this, though.)
In this case I was the original author of that comment (see my original
patch), I probably shouldn't have put it there in the first place, and
it was redundant once I rewrote the upper comment. So three strikes and
your out? :)
I sometimes comment that way rather than one comment at the beginning if
I find it makes it easier to follow the logic flow. In this case since
scheme/guile was new to me I was making sure I understood what was going
on. In a longer term context though it really shouldn't have been
embedded there as the code chunk wasn't that complex.


- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019