On Mar 25, 2010, at 7:11 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
On 3/25/10 8:03 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
Wow u just described fully and emaculated why this proposal was
rubbing me the wrong way. I did not have the time to run through a
use case to see clearly - thanks for doing this and commenting for
all our benefit.
No general mechanical procedure makes up for act thought for each
case. We have to watch for that here.
I agree with Alan on this one. Let's not further obfuscate our
code. BTW it's time for a thorough audit of error messages and log
output since these days many are complaining about false error and
excessive verbosity without clear meaning.
I agree with Alan. However, I don't blame Felix for having chose
this solution : he had some very good reason to do so :
- having no knowledge about the context, he wasn't able to pick a
correct name for each error
- this was a very painful task, and he did it. It's now our turn to
complete the job
Yeah, I saw that. Great work!
So yes, we should move to Enum, pick correct names for those enum.
This can be done step by step, I don't believe we could spend one
full week in a row doing that.
I remember years ago when we had thousands of string constants all
over the code, and decided that we should gather all those constants
in a few places : it's not completely done, but it took months to do
it.
Definitely a good idea.
Regards,
Alan
