Representative comment
-
/* Font names are stored as null-terminated UTF-16 Pascal strings. */
-
Wow, I think I can count at least four things wrong with that one comment. Now, I guess that that comment is in the middle of a global data header file, as opposed to being in the planning documentation?
-
@drachenstern said:
Wow, I think I can count at least four things wrong with that one comment. Now, I guess that that comment is in the middle of a global data header file, as opposed to being in the planning documentation?
Would be nice if it was, but no, the header comment on that field is the entirely non-helpful
pg_char name[FONT_SIZE + BOM_HEADER]; /* "Name" of font */
The comment I posted was found in the middle of a code file, explaining why the font name was being accessed as
&font->name[1]rather thanfont->name.
-
@Carnildo said:
/* Font names are stored as null-terminated UTF-16 Pascal strings. */So what's your problem? I'd die for comments like that! It's a Pascal string -- that means it has a leading length count, probably 2 bytes long (pg_char type in your example). Then the data also has a null terminator, probably actually two nulls. This makes it more easily usable from a C context. Then it tells you that it's in UTF-16 encoding.
I repeat, so what's your problem?
-
Why bother null terminating it if you've got a length count?
-
@vt_mruhlin said:
Why bother null terminating it if you've got a length count?
Didn't Joel Sposky call those Fucked Strings once?
They'll get out of sync if the string is at all mutable.
-
@vt_mruhlin said:
Why bother null terminating it if you've got a length count?
Because you can simply pass them to WinAPI.
-
@UpNDown said:
So what's your problem? I'd die for comments like that! It's a Pascal string -- that means it has a leading length count, probably 2 bytes long (pg_char type in your example). Then the data also has a null terminator, probably actually two nulls. This makes it more easily usable from a C context. Then it tells you that it's in UTF-16 encoding.
I repeat, so what's your problem?
That we still don't know whether it's UTF-16BE or UTF-16LE!
Duhhhhhhhh
-
