> On 2022-07-08,, at 7:56 , Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> From: Gerd Möllmann >> >> Too bad. It does not improve the "habitability" of the code, IMO. > > I'm not sure I understand: can you elaborate what you mean by that? I used the term habitability in the sense of Richard Gabriel in Patterns of Software. https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/PatternsOfSoftware.pdf "Habitability is the characteristic of source code that enables programmers, coders, bug-fixers, and people coming to the code later in its life to understand its construction and intentions and to change it comfortably and confidently." (There's of course more...) > > From my POV, the names are quite self-explanatory, and in a production > build these small functions are all inlined by the compiler, so I > don't think I see a significant downside. But now, as in this case with the new variable, one has to write a new bset function, for no other reason than to make matters worse by introducing inconsistency by having some variables that habe a bset and other that have not... I'm sure you understand what I mean. I think I wouldn't call it "significant" either, but I also don't think it's good in any sense. > (There _was_ a downside in > the past: the annoying job of converting all direct accesses to struct > members to function calls, but that's water under the bridge.) Right.