Ed Leafe wrote: > On Dec 15, 2006, at 5:44 PM, Carl Karsten wrote: > >> um, merge = something happened. I am not sure this is good. > > Hmmm... guess you haven't used Subversion much. > >>> Huh? How would the i-layer approach help here? You would have had to >>> override a complete method, which would have been a lot hairier to >>> maintain. >> I would have done exactly that: cut/paste/edit. >> >> I totally disagree on the hairier - If I had had my hacked code in >> the i-layer, >> I would have had to do nothing when your change came in. my code >> would continue >> to be used, 'nothing' would change regardless of what your code did. >> >> do nothing <> hairy > > Uh-huh. And if I had also added something that you *didn't* already > do in your copy, you would have lost that change.
To me that is better. The odds of my app breaking seem much smaller if I don't get the change than if svn blends my mods and your mods. The svn merge may come in handy if I want to blend them - don't have to cut/paste between files. But having it happen automatically makes me nervous. > >> And none of this address the multiple inheritance suggestion. > > I wasn't trying to do that. You really seem to be obsessed with > making all your mods locally. Here is something that isn't a Carl > preference; it is something that affects anyone who uses the bit type > in MySQL. Yet you want to keep that change local? > > The whole i-layer/MI approach is for local customization, not > fundamental processes. I was using this as an example. Maybe I'll get lucky and you will like 100% of my mods :) _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-dev
