Re: [Bug-gnulib] FYI: copy-file.c tweak

[Paul Eggert]

Bruno Haible <address@hidden> writes:

> I find the code more readable as it is. 'buf' and 'buf_size' belong
> together.

Fair enough.

>   char buf[4096];
>   const size_t buf_size = sizeof (buf);

While we're on the subject, I find that 'const' to make the code less
readable here.  There's rarely any point declaring a local variable's
type to be 'const': that information is easily deducible from the code
and the extra keyword makes the code harder to read.

> In others we write
> 
>   const size_t buf_size = MIN (MAX (file_size, 4096), 1048576);
>   char *buf = (char *) xmalloc (buf_size);

If you wanted to be truly consistent, you would write 'char * const buf'.
But it would be better to omit 'const' entirely from these examples,
and from the corresponding code in copy-file.c.


> > it avoids the include-file mess.
> 
> "mess"?

Not everyone uses the same include-file rules, and even the people who
understand the rules that you're using don't always follow them
correctly.  So it's better to avoid including a file entirely, all
other things being equal.