Re: CURRENT as gateway on not-so-fast hardware: where is a bottlneck?

On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 14:29 -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Ian Lepore
> > No!  Not bde!  He'll notice that I violated style(9) by accidentally
> > leaving an extra blank line between a comment block and the function
> > definition.  :)  (There are probably more violations than that -- I did
> > this when I was first trying to come to grips with the differences
> > between style(9) and the almost-style(9) standards we use at work.)
> >
> > When I first proposed the changes, jhb remarked that they sounded good,
> > but as far as I know, nobody reviewed the actual diff when I posted it.
> > It looks like bde and phk were the primary maintainers back when this
> > code was being more actively worked on.
> 
> Why not bde? Everyone needs to learn what the term "bruceification" means.
> 
> Believe me, there IS good reason for programming style and almost
> everyone with a commit bit gets close. bde will provide a reminder of
> any of those things you forgot were in style(9). This is something we
> should appreciate, even if it does sting a bit.

Did you miss the smiley I buried between two sentences there?

Having worked on code written with no style guidelines, I totally
understand the need for consistent style.  While I find a couple of
style(9)'s edicts to be massively annoying, all in all I'd rather work
on code that has a consistent style I hate than on code with no
consistency.

-- Ian