On Tuesday, August 07, 2012 11:08:40 you wrote: > I think the maintainer is aware that Wget's code quality is poor, and > would welcome sweeping architectural changes; I know I would have, when > I was maintainer. Of course, but we can have different points of view what improvement is. > > I fed wget source to GNU complexity and It suggested me to look at > > parse_netrc. So I came with some ideas -- they are not so fast to > > implement, so I want to discuss them, to not waste work.
> To my mind, there are many more monstrous functions than parse_netrc. > And in parse_netrc's case, I'm guessing most of the code is fairly > single-minded. In cases such as gethttp or http_loop, those functions > "know" way too much about various subsystems, and take responsibility > for far too much, in addition to being simply behemoth in size. They will get their hour. > Not to my eye. I can instantly understand what the while-loop does, > whereas the function is a mystery to me until I actually inspect it. I > do not believe that one- or two-line functions add value (and they > usually detract), except in cases where the implementation might change, > and needs to be gathered to one spot. I do not think that scanning for a > category of character qualifies. Okay. I would like to hear more opinions. Because for me, two-line loop and comment before is worse then function with speaking name. 3 lines vs 1. > We're already inextricably tied to gnulib at this point, we might as > well take advantage of any facilities already offered to us there. > > And I suspect gnulib will have a number of facilities that may help in > the refactoring effort anyway. Yes. But what about list.h? Okay, I am waiting for Guiseppe responce. Especially about creating libwget. -- Best regards, illusionoflife Contact me on [email protected]. Please, read rfc1855, if did not already.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
