X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: 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
	a=OCttjWrK5_uSHO_3Hkg-:22
X-SECURESERVER-ACCT:	glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=epilitimus.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:
	In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:
	Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:
	Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:
	List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive;
	bh=kyAJdh0xwt96J8MeN6gBVNuvzBzyZA7MiJZo6dFT1ms=; b=K7FSNkHAg5ljS8+ZwVdZjAysfe
	liE5r2sDENPYnYmTzX572PEbaz4mhI4LJLMQTSDD2d4ZghGb8xCBLIyyseOgZnCl8TxmMh0XGUvnt
	VqnMni+7B2GNqFLtDcUN93aA1gpWV0tsU15joJww96RRp5uiUrH5bt9gF7ywQELhubwRrZXgX8QsJ
	KFbEytMWGNyLRDh801Y8dcpxlNEaBFzCAi1Ba20CrQD3+iCuxrdlrwAqTn15jxz+NbfR96REQnGzV
	fUHb9ZRklt8p9UVK9ioqbG2r4zKMOEvSRAD0vyi68n+NwVbRGEatB4DK2/nAmqBGZSLtavxKDpVh0
	ml4PXs7Q==;
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:	<f5725690-2a0e-c0c0-124d-71479f9952e3@epilitimus.com>
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 - a2plcpnl0121.prod.iad2.secureserver.net
X-AntiAbuse:	Original Domain - delorie.com
X-AntiAbuse:	Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse:	Sender Address Domain - epilitimus.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via:	a2plcpnl0121.prod.iad2.secureserver.net: authenticated_id: glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com
X-Authenticated-Sender:	a2plcpnl0121.prod.iad2.secureserver.net: glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-CMAE-Envelope:	MS4xfBp6P5qyiKboOdZ4ugjSyw9jKlEEyPzWFozBzj/Ab8e4Ir9XlnAn1VyT3OYH7oC7MyaO851dFb22MdM+J9O74xK9GjWwUEUImcvae+wMNAoz7x6JKjp4
	DgAqtVgKcgIJ0Y2jdeIvxomikO1syYZguO4ub+8SyPMDDV8b8AkBtE9IJB0LIOfE5jN67EkxeD0T+wXjuquUbSDjijHZjnkI9hzd47LWZ69AE8zTlqj1l8b5
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.
correct
>
> 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.

Glenn

- Raw text -