On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 03:30:46PM +0100, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 03:00:06PM +0100, Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems
Germany wrote:
IoW: There's a little less pain. Still, I am unsure whether the reduced
pain is worth the gain. But if we minimize the former, I'd
Hi Frank,
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 15:00 +0100, Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems
Germany wrote:
Sure. Again: The question is whether the gain is worth the pain.
Personally, I somehow doubt it.
I'm all for removing external header guards, and doing it in one step.
The big gain I see is less
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 03:00:06PM +0100, Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems
Germany wrote:
Are you suggesting to do this incrementally? In which way would that
help, for the individual developer, who needs to resync one or more
CWSs against the inevitably changed include portion of her
Hi Thorsten,
I cannot imagine changes to OOo code that do not potentially cause
pain someone somewhere. The thing is, it's a change for the better,
removes a ton of unnecessary, fragile hard to maintain code, and there
simply won't be a better time for this.
Sure. Again: The question is
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 12:33:47PM +0100, Nikolai Pretzell wrote:
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany schrieb:
What, except removing some ugliness, which is alway highly subjective,
is the gain of this change?
Maintainability.
The uglyness IMHO is not subjective, and a defect.
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany schrieb:
Hi Thorsten,
kendy and me now intend to execute the once-postponed plan to remove
external header guards (that #ifndef STUFF #include STUFF #endif
ugliness). A bit more background:
Hi Frank,
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany schrieb:
I'm all in for somebody else doing work :), and I do not doubt that it
is *reasonable* to remove external include guards /in general/.
I only suspect that the minor gain we get from this is not worth the
potential medium or big pain
Hi Nikolai,
The uglyness IMHO is not subjective, and a defect. Maintainability is
a major problem in any project as huge as OOo,
Sure.
- unnecessary code
Which is true for a lot of other places, too. I usually fix those
incrementally :)
- a potential cause for difficult to find errors,
On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 02:43:55PM +0100, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
i will clean up the code generators (cppumaker and uno-skeletonmaker).
Please file an issue for that and asign it to me.
Thx, most appreciated - issue is
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=85987
Cheers,
--
Hi Thorsten,
kendy and me now intend to execute the once-postponed plan to remove
external header guards (that #ifndef STUFF #include STUFF #endif
ugliness). A bit more background:
http://blog.thebehrens.net/2008/02/05/obsolete-external-header-guards/
We already discusses this a little bit
Hi Thorsten,
i will clean up the code generators (cppumaker and uno-skeletonmaker).
Please file an issue for that and asign it to me.
Juergen
Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Hi fellow devs,
kendy and me now intend to execute the once-postponed plan to remove
external header guards (that #ifndef
Hi fellow devs,
kendy and me now intend to execute the once-postponed plan to remove
external header guards (that #ifndef STUFF #include STUFF #endif
ugliness). A bit more background:
http://blog.thebehrens.net/2008/02/05/obsolete-external-header-guards/
Ideally, we'd want to land this in HEAD
12 matches
Mail list logo
