On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 06:15:58PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 04:40:08PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> On Jun 29 10:26, Ralph Hempel wrote: >>>> Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>> >>>>> Remember that setup won the obfuscated c++ code contest in 2002. We're >>>>> very proud of that. >>>> I thought you had to submit code that was intentionally obfuscated. Code >>>> that just got all crufty by itself doesn't normally qualify. >>> Huh? I always thought that setup *is* intentionally obfuscated. >>> Did I miss something? >> >> I think you're both right. There was intentional obfuscation in the >> original design but it was improved upon by the handful of setup >> developers (I among them) over time. > >[ Heh. Legacy code FTW. To me it looks like some of the code was >developed in parallel with some of the developers learning the ins and >outs of writing big C++ applications for the first time. That's only >to be expected; there's a lot of stuff about a language that you just >don't learn until you really use it in anger for a while. Anyway, it >is what it is and it's not _that_ bad. ]
Actually, I don't think anyone who wrote this part of the code would claim to have been learning c++. However, now that I think of it, I believe that the problem you're talking about was known when the ability to resize the dialog box was added. I believe that I said something like "the functionality offered outweighs the potential problem". > Ok? Looks ok to me. Thanks for tracking this down. cgf
