4 ms·

As someone unfamiliar with this library or concurrency in C for that matter, I do not understand your comment. The code examples on libmill.org look simple enou

As someone unfamiliar with this library or concurrency in C for that matter, I do not understand your comment. The code examples on libmill.org look simple enough that I'd want to use it. What is it that you think is not right about it ?

chrisseaton 7y ago
I think their ‘should’ is just an idle opinion, not a technical comment as in saying it’s broken.
- kazinator 7y ago
  It is an opinion, and it was obviously written in spare moments that can be identified as idle. But it is far from an idle opinion. I consider that a personal attack. Furthermore, my opinion here is, in fact a technical comment. Hidden open braces inside a macro expansion that are explicitly closed by ones written by the user, and vice versa, is actually a technical issue, not simply aesthetics. The two are not entirely separated.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    Why ‘should’ it be written as ‘select’? How is the current name incorrect? It’s just an opinion. The downvotes are probably because you’re expressing a naming bikeshed issue like your opinion is undeniably correct. ‘I would call the function ‘select’’ would be a reasonable comment.
    - kazinator 7y ago
      It doesn't match the Go syntax that it's trying to quite faithfully imitate. This is for a psychological reason, which I'm dispeling as a needless concern. It's fairly obvious to me that the author wanted that identifier; I'm just saying that the reasons against changing the name are weak.
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        I don’t know what you think ‘should’ means but it’s not ‘I think this way may be a better trade-off.’
      - ori_b 7y ago
        And the Go syntax doesn't match the Alef syntax that it's trying to emulate. Go is clearly wrong here, and the correct name is 'alt'.
      - yourbandsucks 7y ago
        "Not breaking everything on posix systems when you include standard headers" isn't a psychological reason.

chrisseaton 7y ago

I think their ‘should’ is just an idle opinion, not a technical comment as in saying it’s broken.

kazinator 7y ago
It is an opinion, and it was obviously written in spare moments that can be identified as idle. But it is far from an idle opinion. I consider that a personal attack. Furthermore, my opinion here is, in fact a technical comment. Hidden open braces inside a macro expansion that are explicitly closed by ones written by the user, and vice versa, is actually a technical issue, not simply aesthetics. The two are not entirely separated.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  Why ‘should’ it be written as ‘select’? How is the current name incorrect? It’s just an opinion. The downvotes are probably because you’re expressing a naming bikeshed issue like your opinion is undeniably correct. ‘I would call the function ‘select’’ would be a reasonable comment.
  - kazinator 7y ago
    It doesn't match the Go syntax that it's trying to quite faithfully imitate. This is for a psychological reason, which I'm dispeling as a needless concern. It's fairly obvious to me that the author wanted that identifier; I'm just saying that the reasons against changing the name are weak.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      I don’t know what you think ‘should’ means but it’s not ‘I think this way may be a better trade-off.’
    - ori_b 7y ago
      And the Go syntax doesn't match the Alef syntax that it's trying to emulate. Go is clearly wrong here, and the correct name is 'alt'.
    - yourbandsucks 7y ago
      "Not breaking everything on posix systems when you include standard headers" isn't a psychological reason.