3 ms·
No, you are not the only one. The author of that code is trying to make it explicit -- "yes, I want to allow reuse of local addressses". Some will prefer this
by nocman 7y ago
No, you are not the only one.
The author of that code is trying to make it explicit -- "yes, I want to allow reuse of local addressses". Some will prefer this, some won't.
I personally like the use of the variable, though I think it's not worth getting all bent out of shape about it one way or another. But I guess we all have our pet peeves, and I know I'm guilty of getting all bent out of shape about things that ultimately don't matter much.
- teej 7y agoCode is read many times more than it is written. If someone scrutinizes code for clear intent, I don’t think that should be considered a “pet peeve” or some quirk to be explained away.
- Gibbon1 7y agoI feel that code that needs to be read a lot is badly named, commented or dodgy.
- nocman 7y agoI wasn't suggesting that any scrutinizing of the code for clear intent should be considered a "pet peeve". I was saying I see both sides in this particular case, and that in my opinion devlopers (myself included) often make a way bigger deal out of things than they really are -- when the larger part of their offense toward a particular choice is often more about personal taste than it is anything else (thus the reference to pet peeves). Again, I like the use of the variable, because in my opinion it makes the code a bit clearer, but I also don't think it is the end of the world if someone chooses the option without it.