On 03/03/2007 05:18 PM, Durk Talsma wrote: > .... Also note that many cout statements still in the code are commented > out, for potential use in future development / debugging.
That's exactly what we're talking about today : couts that output *nothing* unless a developer steps in to request something. > Personally, I don't object against commented-out cout / cerr statements > in the code if the author wants to retain them for ongoing development. Agreed! There are thousands of such couts in the code already, and they serve a useful purpose. As I said earlier, there is a theory going around that open code should be really, really open, in a broad /practical/ sense, not just in some narrow legal sense. This also falls under the heading of DfT (design for test). Having gone to the trouble of creating a test harness, why not leave it in there for other folks to use? I don't think it would make much sense to have each person who wants to test the code re-invent and re-implement the test harness. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
