On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Karl Fogel wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter Lundblad) writes:
> > Yeah, including the docstrings in the public headers if I recall correctly.
> Well, that does make less work for the reader -- you always only have
> to jump one reference level away, instead of N. (But I agree, it's
> not really worth it in the long run.)
> >> But how does it introduce code duplication? I agree the work wasn't
> >> needed, but I think it was harmless...
> > In the trivial case the code duplication is obviously also trivial, but
> > sometimes compat wrappers aren't that trivial. Compat wrappers are one of the
> > areas we really undertest, so a cut-and-paste error here may well go into
> > a release undetected.
> > The problem is that you set precedence by doing this in some
> > places. People who look on existing code will
> > continue this code churny activity and that's bad for
> > maintainability.
> That's a good point.
> > That's why I'd rather like to see the changes
> > to preexisting compat wrappers that were introduced on
> > the sparse-directories branch to go away again.
> That shouldn't be too hard, I'll take a look at the diff and see if I
> can make a reversal this weekend.
Thanks Karl. Malcolm and I briefly debated doing that, but decided we
could do it after the merge. FWIW, you even have have a "TODO(sd)"
note in one API where you *don't* do this (instead following the
scheme desired by Peter).
Received on Sat Mar 24 01:12:37 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored