Martin,
Thanks for the review. I appreciate your time looking into the code.
You're doing a fantastic job.
See below,
John
On 02/15/11 07:22 PM, Martin Widjaja wrote:
I have similar thoughts as Ethan, but further, I guess specifically I
have these questions:
544-550:
- Would it not be better/cleaner to be explicit with the 4 conditions
rather than implicitly leaving the 2 out based on pre-existing
values/assumptions?
Perhaps. The case that you are thinking about is actually covered.
The code as you said checks to see if the interface is to be excluded.
If it is not excluded then isn't it safe to assume that it is included?
This part of the code isn't the offending issue. I needed to insure
that the values were initialized which I am handling differently now.
Thus in the new change there is no change here.
- Specifically on the else (line 549): what cases does this cover? Are
the only 2 cases the only ones we need them to be excluded?
- Any reason for not using include_it=true first, then flipping it to
false for the 2 later cases?
The else was covering the fact that self.networks was not actually
initialized to
anything. I have changed the initialization within the __init__() to
initialize this
to a default value which is fine for the browse case. For the register
case I
check to see if the networks and network_exclude is initialized in the
updated
webrev.
_______________________________________________
caiman-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
