5:21 a.m.
On Tue, 2021-11-23 at 12:16 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:59:58AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-11-23 at 11:56 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:25:17AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2021-11-23 at 10:50 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:52:30AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps this would be better:
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to send a proper patch.
> > >
> > > I commented on your proposed patch.
> >
> > And I reply giving you an option if you want to proceed.
> >
> > > And I'd prefer you actually look at and improve the code instead
> > > of merely silencing warnings.
> >
> > If this is a matter of preference then I should express my preferences, too.
> > So, I prefer to give you the opportunity of improving the code and not being
> > pedantic at the same time. :)
>
> It appears to be difficult to give you suggestions on how to improve
> what you do.
No; that's appreciated.
What I suggest you to improve is how you communicate it,
:) Thanks. I'll try.
and to take into account a "Feel free to send a proper
patch."
I'm not much for sending actual patches as when I do I get accusations
of being an excessively trivial patch submitter.
And I prefer to communicate in code where feasible rather than
expand all the code into words. But if you prefer:
The indentation used for the fallthrough addition in your patch is
incorrect.
In addition, the brace location in this code is poor.
There is an unnecessary open and close brace around the default case.
Please remove the unnecessary braces and move the default case to the
more typical end-of-block location of the switch statement.
I believe the diff I posted was more efficient than the text above.
cheers, Joe