I agree which is why I am not excited by the task of scrubbing the details but dont mind if someone else does at all. I already had my way with core and examples which are more interesting. They're now pretty in line with checkstyle rules.
Better still in math would be to chuck out the pieces we haven't found a use for and don't suppose there will be a use for soon. Then care about the rest. What would happen if I suggest we delete anything still deprecated? On May 29, 2010 4:25 PM, "Jake Mannix" <[email protected]> wrote: On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > > It isn't just lack o... Wouldn't this be all the more reason to leave that code "ugly" so that as we dig in and use it bit by bit, adding test cases and fixing bugs, we also "pretty-ify" it? Following the "broken-window" analogy, don't go fixing a bunch of windows in a neighborhood where you don't even know if the floorboards on the abandoned houses are rotten out. Fix the windows when that particular house is "move-in-ready". -jake > > > > *shrug* That code still has way more issues than just formatting, it's > > done in an ent...
