On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:09:43PM +0400, Roman Kurakin wrote: > Yar Tikhiy wrote: > >On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 02:06:18AM +0400, Roman Kurakin wrote: > > > >>Robert Watson: > >> > >> > >>>On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Roman Kurakin wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>We could add a "foo" driver to the LINT generated by this script with > >>>>notification that it was generated and all changes should be placed > >>>>to script. > >>>> > >>>I guess I can't help but wonder if a script is necessarily better than > >>>a well-commented template. > >>> > >>Today I've talked with [EMAIL PROTECTED] He suggests to put an example to > >>tree and > >>change script to produce > >>a copy of driver using example from tree as a template via sed or smth > >>like that. It sounds like > >>a good idea. We could have a single dir in subtree with various examples > >>and a set of scripts that > >>could produce from one of the examples a driver to start with. > >> > > > >...and if you manage to make the driver do some real job so that > >people start using it in production, it will have nearly zero chance > >to fall into oblivion; it will remain in a very good shape instead. > >No, I'm telling nonsense here: A useful driver will be hacked > >sooner or later into a huge, ugly, incomprehensible beast reeking > >with features. :-) > > > If you want to add a new functionality you just need to create a new > example. > Probably it wouldn't be bad to have a driver with higher level of complexity > that can do the same (and more) than the other one that is much more simple.
Of course, it's a very good idea, as long as the complex driver source stays comprehensible to readers. Usually that means adding a lot of clear comments to every new feature and around it. OTOH, it shouldn't be a halting task because a sort of a good comment is a must in the commit message anyway. -- Yar _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
