From: David Barr <davidbarr@google.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:25:31 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] vcs-svn: rename check_overflow arguments for clarity
Message-ID: <CAFfmPPOeFk871m_N+nLXgQx3Uj4wVhgR9BNFzM2ggtseop0JaA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120202111628.GN3823@burratino>

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dmitry Ivankov wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> From: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>
>>>
>>> Code using the argument names a and b just doesn't look right (not
>>> sure why!).  Use more explicit names "offset" and "len" to make their
>>> type and function clearer.
>>
>> Well, it's still not clear. Given off_t a, size_t b, check that a+b
>> fits into type... which type?
>> "offset" and "length" don't imply that it's "type of offset" or maybe
>> "type of length".
>
> Hmm... in vector arithmetic, position (i.e., file offset) + displacement
> (i.e., size of chunk) = position (i.e., new file offset).  Any ideas
> for making this clearer?

Maybe rename to check_offset_overflow to make it explicit?
--
David Barr