Hi, On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 10:04 +0100, Henrik Akesson wrote: > >From where I come from, it's a no-no to keep unused code "just in > case". Normally, this kind of code tends to accumulate and never be > cleaned out. On top of that, the "just in case" code tends to have to > be rewritten when finally needed, as it is seldom fit for the purpose > (the imagined case is often not the real case).
What really matters here is what the intention was behind adding this method. What other implementations of GeglVisitable are planned and does it makes sense to have this method for any of them? If we can't answer this question, then that code should rather be removed. Sven _______________________________________________ Gegl-developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer
