On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, John Denker wrote: > On 03/01/2007 02:19 PM, AJ MacLeod wrote: >> Was the stuff at line 300 intended to be in there? > > Actually yes, I put the call-trace in there for a reason, and I left > it in there for a reason. I thought that in the future, some folks > might find it helpful to see how/where this code was being called.
Anyone who needs that backtrace can do it himself. Those who don't even know how to do set breakpoints and do a simple backtrace with a debugger, won't understand sourcecode anyway. Just like soucecode, saved backtraces would be documentation of implementation, not design. The latter is something that could be improved a lot for FG. :P I'm not sure the sourcecode files is the right place for that though, being limited to ascii plaintext; and by the risk of having the documentation deleted by accident or misunderstandings; and in that it isn't allways obvious that a design idea is connected to one particular position in the code. Someone editing another source file may miss it together. Maybe we should have a design documentation wiki? (Then just refer to sections there from the source when necessary.) And Melchior is our source tree janitor whose job is act "troll on the bridge" and keep the code nice and tidy. So just do as he says regarding the cosmetics so we can get the stuff in already, OK. =) Good work with cleaning up the ATIS mess. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
