| 1 |
Jan Kundrát wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>Omer Cohen wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>we're talking about one of the biggest OC communities. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
><flame> |
| 11 |
>...and the same community whose members write code like that described |
| 12 |
>in PHP's bug 31261 [1], which seems quite ugly, at least to me. |
| 13 |
></flame> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>My point is that even if developers say their code is stable, it doesn't |
| 16 |
>have to mean it *really* is, altough they're probably correct. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>[1] http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=31261 |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
Actually, I can understand avoiding unnecessary bit flipping. I've done |
| 23 |
that in databases on occasion. I'll write a SQL statement that checks |
| 24 |
if there are matching records for an update instead of just executing a |
| 25 |
statement that makes changes to those matching records. Depending on |
| 26 |
the likelihood of changes and the number of records to be changed, it |
| 27 |
was sometimes faster to pre-qualify an update instead of just doing it |
| 28 |
when it wasn't going to find any matches. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
That's all the code in that particular bug does, check the value of a |
| 31 |
bit before turning it off. If it's already off, don't touch it. |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives