| ??? 05/20/10 13:36 Read: times |
#176070 - variable/function names can be misleading too Responding to: ???'s previous message |
...they are not scrutinised by the comipiler either.
Per Westermark said:
P2 |= 1 << CLOCK_BIT;
and I would have expected variables/constants in the source to match signal names on the schematics.There is nothing which prevents the programmer to write malicious or [the word Andy will be so kind to supply for the unintentional counterpart of malicious] function/variable/constant/whatever names. --- And that happens not only by accident or malice. I have a huge schematics here I need to work from time to time with, and the signal names don't match even on different parts of the schematics. This has both historical (the device evolved from several simpler with slightly different functions), marketing (the devices we need to match with our device call signals differently) and technical (to overcome certain limitations of schematic capture software) reasons. I have the same in some of software I wrote, for the same reasons. JW |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| When comments go wrong | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Always document what the code is doing or the weather | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| do you have some examples of that? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I've never seen anything like that ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Do it like a pro. ;) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the dubious value of comments | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: not subject to any scrutiny of the compiler | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| limited vocabulary | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| dubious | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Please remove baby from bathwater before disposal! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Good selection of symbol names helps a lot | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| variable/function names can be misleading too | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: the word Andy will be so kind to supply... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Well | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Dodgy premise | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
That's no fun. | 01/01/70 00:00 |