On 11/30/2011 2:29 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: > On 11/22/2011 08:12 AM, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote: >>> Lorenzo, > : >>> >>> To do the least little thing, you have to get rid of the legacy >>> first. It is obvious from the code. So, my question, under >>> the current "managmement", why has this not happenned? For so >>> many years. My only conclusion is that the current "management" >>> is incapable of doing it for one reason or another. >>> >>> --brian >> One of the best ways to get started actually contributing to KiCad is to >> offer byte sized >> patches which concentrate on one or two public member fields, and provides >> accessors for >> these, making the fields protected or private. I cannot tell you how many >> of these kinds >> of patches that Wayne and I have made. I did scores of them in 2008. Wayne >> has done more >> than that in the last two years. >> >> This procedure, if continued by enough man-hours, would transition KiCad >> more in the >> direction of an object oriented design. We remember that KiCad was >> originally C code not >> C++. So it has been in evolution for the last several years, all the while >> churning out >> boards that we all benefit from. >> >> Current "management" is incapable of doing this because current management >> is not paid >> enough to work on this project full time. To help with this evolution, the >> door is open >> to more volunteers. The product of the work should be reasonably sized >> patches, >> addressing one or two fields at a time. Even doing this, these are >> sometimes thousand >> line patches. >> >> No disagreement on the need. Just in attitude, and willingness to >> contribute in a way >> that is appropriate. >> >> >> Dick > > After further consideration, I revise my position, and tend towards Brian's > point of > view. There is NEW code being written that is not being respectful or our > goal towards > effective C++.
Given all of the object encapsulation and global variable elimination fixes I've made over the years, I thought I was immune from this one but I found one of my classes (only DANGLING_END_ITEM so far, there may be others) with public member variables. I hang my head in shame. :( I know better. I have added it to my todo list. I will continue fixing these issues in legacy code as I find them. > Specifically new code is adding public members, and not using accessors. In > fact, I would > say a considerable amount of new code. > > I no longer have any answers to this problem. We have to get more buy in > from others in > the project, including Jean-Pierre. You have my continued support. Wayne > > > Dick > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
