On Saturday, Oct 18, 2003, at 19:46 Europe/Rome, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
On Friday, Oct 17, 2003, at 20:36 Europe/Rome, Berin Loritsch wrote:
Anyone have a logical view of how the Treebuilder is supposed to work? It would definitely help me in refactoring things. As it is now, the Treebuilder is tightly integrated with the ECM, so it is something that won't work right away... I am just trying to get to a place where I can compile 2.2 so that my testcases will run and I can verify what I am doing works.
Sylvain knows this and, AFAIK, he's one of the few (only?) that does.
Which is also something that I'm particularely comfortable with, even if this is not clearly Sylvain's fault if what he writes works as expected and nobody has to go there and fix it ;-)
[I guess you meant "I'm *not* particularely comfortable with"]
yeah :-)
Erm... How should I understand that? Is this an invitation to write buggy code to force others to jump in?
well, why not?
Well... community-wise, this is an interesting approach, and I even remember that you used it with the build system. I should give it a try ;-P
I used it many more places than the build system over the years. Sometimes I left easy-to-fix bugs on purpose so that people would find them and be confortable with the code... of course, not too many ;-)
[but you'll never know if this is true, or I'm just a lousy programmer with a lot of inventive in covering his ass ;-)]
But a description of the internals of the tree processor would be helpful not only for migration for also for future reference (refactor? cleanup? profile? whatever)
Sure. See my answer to Daniel's post for an in-depth explanation.
thanks. hopefully somebody will blog this... hint hint ;-)
=--Stefano.
