http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=9407
Jonathan Druart <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|Signed Off |Passed QA --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Druart <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #6) > That change makes the code easier to read for now, but would have to be > changed to something like the perlfaq4 idiom I used if C4::Patrons::Search > (and C4::SQLHelper::SearchInTable) gains other possible values that we want > to allow, or if someone chooses to add the currently-supported "exact" type. > Should I add a comment to note that I'm using the perlfaq4 idiom to ease > future expansion, or use the simpler form for now? MJ, I think it is more complicated to maintain a code in a philosophy of "think about the future if... and if ...". To me the code must be simple at a given moment. So I am in favour of not modifying the code until someone add another value. It was just a proposition and you presented arguments so the patch can pass QA :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
