On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 07:27:07 -0500, David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Alex Perry writes: > > > > Fair enough. I certainly overengineered props.[ch]xx, in > > > anticipation of all kinds of sophisticated stuff that people > > > never bothered doing. I've been learning, slowly, from the XP > > > people to build only for today(all my training previously was to > > > anticipate future needs, and it's hard to let that go). > > > > It's nice to have a concept that can support all that stuff if/when > > we have an excuse to make use of it. Put the methods and stuff > > into the header file, with a comment that they are not implemented > > yet, and have the implementations break if used. That makes it > > easier to have backward compatible code when the snazzy features > > get added. > > Yes, except that I think we're paying a price with a couple of levels > of unnecessary indirection and with code that no one but me can > understand. I'd like to keep most of the user-level stuff intact, but ..educate us! Comments, and pointers where to learn more. This is also an educational project. ..and eventually, I will want to explain my changes to "this-and-that" code to airworthiness inspectors from FAA. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
