| Giorgos Keramidas 2008-01-22, 7:27 pm |
| On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:02:41 +0100, Lars Uffmann <aral@nurfuerspam.de> wrote:
> Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>
> This code was posted as-is. It works, I am open to suggestions, but I
> am not going to elaborate on why I don't use "existing code" for
> something that is really a very minor thing.
>
> It was part of a bigger tool and MY style is to get a working program
> first and THEN go into detail about possible user errors or other
> problems. I don't really need any what-if's or smart remarks (NIH
> syndrome) at this point, especially when they couldn't be further from
> the truth.
>
> So next time, maybe put your energy into something more useful,
> instead of trying that "holier than thou" attitude.
>
> Look at the other replies to my questions: helpful and to the
> point. Even your own - but I decided to take a different route.
Reading my post again, it is more obvious that it would easily be
mistaken to be a "holier than thou" thing. It was not intended to be
one. My main objection stemmed from the countless times I've seen
people (mostly in teams I've been a member of) reimplement something in
C++ because they don't like existing C code. The comments about size_t
and the runtime checks are the typical way *I* work most of the time.
Adding checks after the fact is something I can't always do in a
successful manner, or in a non-intrusive to the API manner.
Since what you have now does your job, and the style/type comments are
not helpful, please accept my apologies.
- Giorgos
|