Dataflow analysis for Cmm

[Ben Gamari]

Jan Stolarek <jan.stolarek at p.lodz.pl> writes:

>> I don't entirely agree. I personally find it very hard to review large
>> patches as the amount of mental context generally seems to grow
>> super-linearly in the amount of code touched. Moreover, I think it's
>> important to remember that the need to read patches does not vanish the
>> moment the patch is committed. To the contrary, review is merely the
>> first of many instances in which a patch will be read. Other instances
>> include,
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with everything you say. I don't see it as contradicting in any way 
> principles that I outlined. It's just that sometimes doing a single logical change to the code 
> requires a large patch and breaking it artificially into smaller patches might actually make 
> matters worse. I believe this would be the case for this scenario. And honestly speaking I don't 
> think that the patch here will be very big. But like you say, there's a compromise to be struck.
>
Ahh, it looks like I was probably reading more into what you wrote than
you intended; my apologies!

Cheers,

- Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 454 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20161020/5265e169/attachment-0001.sig>