Hi,
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Denis Kenzior <denkenz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Andre,
On 02/07/2011 03:48 PM, andre matos wrote:
> Hi Denis,
>
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Denis Kenzior <denkenz(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:denkenz@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Andre,
>
> > Are we reading the same code?
> >
> > for this case we have:
> > numactive != 1 ==> true
> > numheld != 1 ==> false
> >
> > (numactive != 1) && (numheld != 1) ==> false
> >
>
> Then shouldn't the patch simply be modified to if (numactive != 1 ||
> numheld != 1)?
>
>
> Yes, if you wish to sacrifice readability for simplicity.
>
Don't get too offended, the || was intended instead of && in the first
place. My brain just had wired crossed and I wasn't seeing why you
needed a 6 line patch to fix this.
Not offended at all :) i will always have preference for my code :)
My code got more complicated because initially i thought that connect
counter was for incoming and outgoing calls.
> I find my version self explanatory.
>
Sorry, but I do not find your style more readable, less actually. Also,
when submitting patches please follow our coding style guidelines. You
had at least 1 style violation, namely rule M4.
That is strange i run checkpatch on the code i did not get any warning. Is
there a better script for the checking the patches before sending?
Best regards,
André