Hi Guenter, Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> writes:
>>>>> Is there some good reason for changing the name of those labels ? >>>> >>>> Vivien suggested to rename this since it makes more clear that this write >>>> is >>>> meant to return to page 0 to make sure that phylib doesn't get confused >>>> about the currently active page. >>>> >>> >>> And "clear:" accomplishes that ? I would not have guessed. >>> Wonder if anyone else does. I would have used a comment. >>> /* Try to return to page 0 even after an error */ >>> or something like that. >> >> "error" definitely doesn't make sense, especially in case of success. If >> one has a better suggestion that "clear" for the label, I don't really >> mind. > > Sounds like POV to me. I don't like changing label names, because someone > else may come the next day and change it again. At the end, one ends up > in a label name war. It also makes patches look more complicated than > necessary, and it _is_ an unrelated change. I don't understand the > problem with adding a comment, and using a label name in place of a > comment seems odd to me. > > Anyway, this has all become philosophical, meaning I'll stay out of it. > Pick whatever you want ... Sorry I don't fully agree. There is no war or philosophical concerns. "error" is just not correct here, this is not only an error path. Why should we end up with a wrongly named label plus a comment, when we can have a self documented function? But I do agree that this change is not related. As the patch is moving the core of these functions, it was just a good opportunity to rename the label. I would understand and won't mind a very first 1/3 patch only renaming the label. That might be a bit overkill however... Thanks, Vivien
