[Spice-devel] [PATCH v2 06/13] Rephrase section on short functions for readability

[Christophe Fergeau]

On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:50:37AM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> > 
> > From: Christophe de Dinechin <dinechin at redhat.com>
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christophe de Dinechin <dinechin at redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  docs/spice_style.txt | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/docs/spice_style.txt b/docs/spice_style.txt
> > index 3e463d2f..74f4e29d 100644
> > --- a/docs/spice_style.txt
> > +++ b/docs/spice_style.txt
> > @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ If multiple related constants are to be defined, consider
> > the use of enumeration
> >  Short functions
> >  ---------------
> >  
> > -Try to split code to short functions, each having simple functionality, in
> > order to improve code readability and re-usability. Prefix with inline short
> > functions or functions that were splitted for readability reason.
> > +Try to split code to short functions, each having simple functionality, in
> > order to improve code readability and re-usability. Prefix with `inline`
> > functions that were splitted for readability reason or that are very short.
> >  
> >  Return on if
> >  ------------
> 
> I really don't understanding the aiming of both version.
> Is mixing the inline concept (optimization suggestion) with readability
> and I don't understand the reason.

I'd just drop any mention of 'inline'. If it's short, better to let the
compiler decide for you, unless you have measured that the function
really has to be inlined.

Christophe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/spice-devel/attachments/20180214/51a28219/attachment.sig>