I know protobuf code is extremely high quality, but I really can't stand the c-style naming conventions.
I know people train themselves into grokking this and reading and emitting this way, but it sounds like writing "bork bork bork bork" runes to me.
I'm glad Rust feels more like Ruby and Python and that method and field names are legible.
My eyes just glaze over:
UPB_API_INLINE
const struct upb_MiniTableField* upb_MiniTable_FindFieldByNumber(
const struct upb_MiniTable* m, uint32_t number) {
const uint32_t i = number - 1; // 0 wraps to UINT32_MAX
// Ideal case: index into dense fields
if (i < m->UPB_PRIVATE(dense_below)) {
UPB_ASSERT(m->UPB_ONLYBITS(fields)[i].UPB_ONLYBITS(number) == number);
return &m->UPB_ONLYBITS(fields)[i];
}
// Early exit if the field number is out of range.
uint32_t hi = m->UPB_ONLYBITS(field_count);
uint32_t lo = m->UPB_PRIVATE(dense_below);
UPB_ASSERT(hi >= lo);
uint32_t search_len = hi - lo;
if (search_len == 0 ||
number > m->UPB_ONLYBITS(fields)[hi - 1].UPB_ONLYBITS(number)) {
return NULL;
}
// Slow case: binary search
const struct upb_MiniTableField* candidate;
#ifndef NDEBUG
candidate = UPB_PRIVATE(upb_MiniTable_ArmOptimizedLowerBound)(
m, lo, search_len, number);
UPB_ASSERT(candidate ==
UPB_PRIVATE(upb_MiniTable_LowerBound)(m, lo, search_len, number));
#elif UPB_ARM64_ASM
candidate = UPB_PRIVATE(upb_MiniTable_ArmOptimizedLowerBound)(
m, lo, search_len, number);
#else
candidate = UPB_PRIVATE(upb_MiniTable_LowerBound)(m, lo, search_len, number);
#endif
return candidate->UPB_ONLYBITS(number) == number ? candidate : NULL;
}Yeah namespaces and public/private would be quite nice, but C doesn't have them, so they get hacked on via macros and prefixing. The syntax was not the hard part of working or analyzing this code, though.
I think this needs way more "upb" and "UPB" to make it clear that it is, in fact, dealing with UPBs. Whatever these are.
> I really can't stand the c-style naming conventions.
Honestly I don't see much difference between
and