in reply to Re: Re: Re: why is this code bad under -w option?
in thread why is this code bad under -w option?

In your your first map definition, you define KB, MB and GB as consecutive multiples of ten, not consecutive powers of 1000.

I'm storing the powers, not the values. So, the powers are 10, 20, and 30. I then take it to the power later. Thus, it's not buggy (at least from an analysis point of view).

I was suggesting another solution. In no way do I ever say that you have to do it this way or I'll come over to your house with Vino and Guido to break your kneecaps. :-) And, in fact, you're right about calculating the values ahead of time, but not for the reason you think. The best reason is if the requirements change and there's a new block size called HH that resolves to 734623 bytes. My way is a little obfuscated. Your way is more explicit. Good call!

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

Don't go borrowing trouble. For programmers, this means Worry only about what you need to implement.

Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.

  • Comment on Re4: why is this code bad under -w option?