Re: [PATCH 3/3] diff --stat: sometimes use non-linear scaling.

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Sep 27, 2006, 05:09 UTC
Message-ID: <7vmz8lj3pl.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64N.0609262005150.520@attu4.cs.washington.edu>

David Rientjes <rientjes@cs.washington.edu> writes:

> Again with the constant placement in a comparison expression.

I won't comment on this one.  See list archives ;-).

Show 19 quoted lines

>>  		if (max_change < width)
>>  			;
>> +		else if (non_linear_scale) {
>> +			total = scale_non_linear(total, width, max_change);
>> +			add = scale_linear(add, total, add + del);
>> +			del = total - add;
>> +		}
>>  		else {
>>  			total = scale_linear(total, width, max_change);
>>  			add = scale_linear(add, width, max_change);
>> 
>
> if (...)
> 	;
> else if {
> 	...
> }
>
> is _never_ necessary.

What's happening here in this particular case is:

	if the changes fits within the alloted width
		; /* we do not have to do anything */
	else if we are using non-linear scale {
               	scale it like this
	}
	else {
               	scale it like that
	}

so the code actually matches the flow of thought perfectly well.

I first tried to write it without "if () ;/*empty*/ else" chain like this:

	if given width is narrower than changes we have {
        	if we are doing non-linear scale {
                	scale it like this
                }
                else {
                	scale it like that
		}
	}

It made the indentation unnecessarily deep.