3 ms·
I understood them. Take a look at the constants table, indices 0, 2, 4, 6: the column "Value" is truncated. Now imagine you have trouble with an ana function an
by tangus 4y ago
I understood them. Take a look at the constants table, indices 0, 2, 4, 6: the column "Value" is truncated. Now imagine you have trouble with an ana function and want to take a look at the generated bytecode. Would you rather have the columns perfected aligned and try to guess the loaded function name from its first letter? I see several HNers with downvote capacity would, which is a surprise...
- klibertp 4y agoGuilty as charged: https://klibert.pl/statics/awesome-taglist-shown.png https://klibert.pl/statics/awesome-taglist-shown.png - see `make_wibox_conta[iner, obviously]`. It happens when you don't want, or can't, compute the needed column width before printing. It's just a lot less code to pick a number and leave the formatting for later. The same problem bit me multiple times when pretty-printing nested data structures. There's often an arbitrary limit to the depth the printer recurse to and/or the number of elements that get displayed, with the rest hidden behind "..." or something similar. No matter what number you pick, sooner or later you're going to get a case where you miss a really interesting/important piece of information because it got hidden. And if you try to change the default, you're going to get a case where you miss important info because you couldn't be bothered to scroll that far up... Anyway: you're right, this is bad, but also pretty common. Though in this particular case it's really bad, because most of the column width is taken by irrelevant data. Replacing `<function '` with λ would already help a lot.