* Alexis Bory - xiii -- Monday 04 May 2009: > But I do not have the piece which is necessary for testing.
I didn't test it either. It's just obviously wrong (and ugly :-). Wrong, because ... - it uses aircraft.door before that is guaranteed to exist - because it doesn't use "var" where it should, and thus potentially breaks other code or gets broken by other code Ugly because ... - of pointless use of a class. This class has only one member (apart from the equally pointless "exporter"), and that member is shared by all instances. So what is a constructor call really meant to do? Construct redundancy? :-} - it just copies from the doors.nas file that lingers around everywhere (and that's also ugly ;-) -- including the comments, no matter if they make sense or not. (What does this mean: "objects must be here, otherwise local to init()"?) - it uses variable names: What should one expect from calling function pushback.pushbacksystem.pushbackexport()?! Not exactly self-explaining, if you ask me. The quality of code dumped into aircraft dirs is secondary, but it's probably a good idea to keep common code clean. m. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Register Now & Save for Velocity, the Web Performance & Operations Conference from O'Reilly Media. Velocity features a full day of expert-led, hands-on workshops and two days of sessions from industry leaders in dedicated Performance & Operations tracks. Use code vel09scf and Save an extra 15% before 5/3. http://p.sf.net/sfu/velocityconf _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
