[Xcb] Reply Buffering Question

[Anselm R. Garbe]

First of all, my comment was not intended to be an offend or
flame. It was just a quite spontaneous remark, but a valid one
in my impression.

On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 05:12:41PM +0100, Vincent Torri wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 06:17:37PM -0500, Eamon Walsh wrote:
> >> I'm assuming that I can't do something like the following:
> >>
> >>   iterator = xcb_input_list_input_devices_devices_iterator(reply);
> >
> > Honestly, function names that are as long as this one feel
> > totally wrong to me.  I believe long function names are a good
> > indicator for crappy code and wrong software design.  Especially
> > from a C programmer perspective, hell this is not Java...
> 
> the functions are generated from an xml description. So there are some 
> function names that are a bit long

I know they are generated from the XML spec, but that doesn't
changes the fact that they feel wrong. They are hard to read.

> And I don't know why a big length of a function name leads to crapy code 
> and wrong software design.

Long function names don't lead to bad code, they are. In the C
world we don't suffer from them so much historically spoken,
because C programmers tend to use snappy but well-choosen names
for functions. Well, but as a bad example see this[1](*):

In The Practice of Programming (which is a MUST for any C
programmer) a whole chapter has been written about naming
conventions, which has heavily influenced the C world since the
80s. And I agree on them, they are some good examples in
contrast to the other link.

[1] http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/Really-Descriptive-Names.aspx
[2] http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/tpop/

Regards,
-- 
 Anselm R. Garbe >< http://www.suckless.org/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361