switch (thing) {
case VALUE:
        /* Stuff */
        break;
case BAR:
        /* Nonsense */
        break;
default:
        /* Whatever */
        break;
}

with if statements instead:

if (thing == VALUE) {
        /* Stuff */
} else if (thing == BAR) {
        /* Nonsense */
} else {
        /* Whatever */
}

(where stuff, nonsense and whatever are usually a bit larger). I really don’t understand where this has come from – the if based form isn’t nearly so idiomatic for selecting between a range of values and this seems to have come from nowhere pretty much. Is there some code base out there where this is common practice or something?

There’s a few  workflows for dealing with this. My preferred one is to track the appearance of my patches in Stephen Rothwell’s linux-next tree, which tracks individual development trees destined for merge into Linus’ tree. I create a git branch based on the current state of this tree then apply the patches I’m submitting on top of that. This lets me spot any potential merge conflicts that they’ll create but the main function is to allow me to come back to the branch later and track which of the patches has shown up in one of the trees that Stephen tracks. To do this I rebase the branch onto the current state of linux-next:

git rebase --onto next/master old-master

where ‘old-master’ is the last linux-next commit in the branch. This will flag up any merge issues that have come up due to changes in other trees and will also handle patches that are already present in one of the trees in -next by dropping my local version. The end result is a branch based on the new linux-next with all the patches that were not yet applied in it. I can see what still needs to be looked at by examining the log

git shortlog next/master..

and take any appropriate action, such as following up with the relevant maintainer or trying to find out what’s going on with the subsytem if it looks like the subsystem maintainers are inactive.

One possible problem with this approach is that a patch may be applied and then subsequently dropped – this is rare but it can happen. I deal with that by also keeping a normal unrebased development branch whch has the changes in Linus’ tree merged  into it periodically and incremental patches for any review updates that occur during the submission process. By looking at the diff between that and other trees I can see any changes that have got lost along the way.

This being a Dogma 95 film there is little need to wait for a HD version – the Dogma rules are all about getting back to basics including all-natural lighting and handheld camerawork done with low end cameras. This means there’s really not any detail to miss, instead there’s a visceral, documentary style feel. Really the film is all one big sequence of formal exercises – the Dogma rules are obviously a big formalism, the plot is very Jacobean and the whole thing revolves around a rather grand birthday party with bow ties and a toastmaster. The thing that really hooks me is the contrast between all this formality and the content, which is fairly brutal and emphasised by the visual style. I find this sort of setup endlessly fascinating when it’s done well.

• Encounters at the End of the World: Werner Hertzog goes to Antarctica, making a film more about the sort of people who end up spending their time there than about anything else. Though there are suicidal penguins.
• Mum and Dad: If you like this sort of thing the chances are you’ll think it’s brilliant. You may, however, still agree with the other people who don’t like this sort of thing and might describe it as being sick and wrong.
• Standard Operating Procedure: I blogged about this at the time; Errol Morris covers Abu Ghraib and does it very well.
• Just Another Love Story: I really enjoyed this when I saw it, though I do agree with most of the linked review. It’s a noirish thriller with three different time periods in the story being revealed in parallel. It looks gorgeous, it’s very well executed but I’m hesitant since I think I may feel differently when I see it again.
• Good Dick: In broad terms this is a very messed up take on a romantic comedy, more messed up than I believe it’s really intended to be (if you see it, think about what’s actually going on in the story). I enjoyed it for this and the contrast with the immediate tone but it’s not for everyone.

As far as the EIFF moving to June goes… I’m not convinced. I didn’t notice any dramatic improvement in the quality of the programme and while it did avoid the rain that Edinburgh suffered in August there’s nothing quite like the atmosphere you get during the main festival.

The texts have much of the obliqueness of her songwriting, made less obscure by the extra room for explanation that the extended form allows. Everything is apparently impressionistic and naive but expertly wrapped up and structured, with a wry humour taking the edge off the darker material and showing self knowledge that gives a great degree of insight into the experiences being described. Most of this text has been mailed (out on a mailing list I can’t find a link for right now) so it was familiar. The performance added a lot – Kristin has great timing and delivery, adding a lot of warmth to the proceedings.

Much of this has been covered in detail in other reviews but one of the things that particularly struck a chord with me which I don’t think I’ve heard anyone articulate particularly clearly was the description of talking to other people who were doing music and realising that there were people who just didn’t get it, who just did things and didn’t really connect with what they were doing in any meaningful way. There are some things that seem so natural and obvious that it causes quite a bit of cognitive dissonance when you realise that it’s not so for everyone – in my case it’s been things like abstraction and the engineering idea of elegance but I’m fairly sure that this is actually a universal experience. I believe there are some people with hand eye coordination and stuff.

The only reservation I had was with the music. Since I knew most of the songs the musical interludes were a bit frustrating at times – I kept on being disappointed when the second verses failed to appear. Of course, this probably doesn’t peg me as the most critical observer of her work so you might want to take what I say with a pinch of salt.

The script and acting both share many of the best elements of Kevin Smith’s work, being very funny but in the context of a real drama with engaging and very real characters. The humour is never a result of consequenceless gags – the characters say and do things that are funny but this always feels natural and if what they’re doing is not actually terribly clever it’s obvious that they feel the results.

This would make for a very good movie even if that were all that was going on (it might be something close to 2 Days in Paris, another great movie that was at the Edinburgh Film Festival this year) but the way the film is shot adds an extra something. Everything is shot in a clean 1940s black and white, complete with soft focus for the leading lady, and manages to make LA appear beautiful in a way that it rarely does. The visual style softens some of the hard edges that the script has – there’s a constant reminder of a fundamentally nice kind of film, making everything feel much warmer than it might have done. This warmth is the main thing I took away from the film and judging from the atmosphere in the room during the Q&A afterwards I don’t think I was alone.

The film being released in cinemas in the US on Valentine’s Day 2008, hopefully it’ll get a cinema release over here too. Seeing it in the cinema is may be the only chance to see the original black and white version – a colourised version is being prepared for the DVD release, though I hope that both versions will be included.