thx for volunteering. It certainly is a big step forward to easier reading code.
Sun
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Jian-Xin Lai wrote:
> It seems we always need a round of code cleanup because the bug fixes can
> only touch very small piece of the code. Maybe one big change to remove all
> KEY
Hi, Sun
here is the new patch, I have remove the "#ifdef KEY" in the modify
function, and for the 2 new added function, I have make them as a
public member of CODEREP.
Could you please review it?
thanks very much.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Sun Chan wrote:
> 1. WOPT does not allow static o
It seems we always need a round of code cleanup because the bug fixes can
only touch very small piece of the code. Maybe one big change to remove all
KEY is much easier to both developers and gate keepers. If there is no other
volunteers, we can take this.
2011/6/16 Sun Chan
> Does this mean you
Does this mean you are volunteering? I suspect the only sure way
(although slow) is simply remove them while people fixing/changing
things. Else, it can only get worst
Sun
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Jian-Xin Lai wrote:
> It seems combining the code cleanup with bug fix is not a good practic
It seems combining the code cleanup with bug fix is not a good practice. If
#ifdef KEY is not used anymore, we can initiate another round of code
cleanup to remove this macro.
2011/6/14 Sun Chan
> 1. WOPT does not allow static objects, can you put your new routines
> inside the right class?
> 2.
Hi, yongchong:
Thanks for the patch, I have collected your mail cases in the attached
tarball.
I am not the gatekeeper. Due to my limitations, I get one question about
your patch,
==
3. Incorrect Boolean expression si
1. WOPT does not allow static objects, can you put your new routines
inside the right class?
2. please remove the #ifdef KEY, I think we can start removing this
KEY thing now, everyone assumes this as default now
Sun
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Wu Yongchong wrote:
> Hi
> can a gatekeeper he
