Committed now, feedback is very welcome!
2010/11/19 David Montag
> Then I prefer the first set, doesn't hurt to be explicit. Simply reads
> better with less thinking imo.
>
> David
>
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Mattias Persson <
> matt...@neotechnology.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Maybe instead:
Then I prefer the first set, doesn't hurt to be explicit. Simply reads
better with less thinking imo.
David
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Mattias Persson wrote:
> Maybe instead:
>
> INCLUDE_AND_CONTINUE,
> INCLUDE_AND_PRUNE,
> EXCLUDE_AND_CONTINUE,
> EXCLUDE_AND_PRUNE,
>
> because "stop" so
Maybe instead:
INCLUDE_AND_CONTINUE,
INCLUDE_AND_PRUNE,
EXCLUDE_AND_CONTINUE,
EXCLUDE_AND_PRUNE,
because "stop" sounds that the traverser is stopping, where it's really just
stopping that particular branch, i.e. prunes that branch. Or maybe even:
INCLUDE,
INCLUDE_AND_PRUNE,
EXCLUDE,
EXCLUDE_AND_
Fantastic! I have yet to try the implementation out, but I'm positive that
it's an improvement. The only comment I have right now is the use of the
word "SKIP". IMO it is ambiguous with respect to stopping vs excluding. I
prefer EXCLUDE. Will try it out soon. Thanks Mattias!
David
On Thu, Nov 18,
2010/11/18 Mattias Persson
> I just spent less than two hours making this change locally and everything
> works and it generally feels great. Now that I've tried it out myself, this
> way of controlling pruning/filtering feels more awesome. I'll post some
> examples soon so that you can feedback
I just spent less than two hours making this change locally and everything
works and it generally feels great. Now that I've tried it out myself, this
way of controlling pruning/filtering feels more awesome. I'll post some
examples soon so that you can feedback :)
2010/11/10 Mattias Persson
> I'
I've also thought about it, because if you think about it... pruning is just
really there for performance issues and it may be possible to combine
filtering/pruning somehow, yes.
2010/11/7 Yaniv Ben Yosef
> It's a personal taste, but I'm not sure I like all those permutations in
> combined value
It's a personal taste, but I'm not sure I like all those permutations in
combined values.
Perhaps you'll consider that the evaluator would return an object with two
enums:
1. STOP / CONTINUE
2. INCLUDE / EXCLUDE
This will also make it easier to extend the evaluator, so if additional
state is need
David,
I have been noticing the same and came to a similar conclusion. Pruning and
filtering are often used with the same logic. Maybe we could introduce a
combined interface and see if that works better?
/peter - From my cellphone, please excuse typos and brevity...
On Nov 5, 2010 7:56 PM, "David
Hi all,
Hopefully most of you are familiar with the traversal framework that was
introduced in 1.1. It's powerful and provides for reusable traversal
descriptions. It has some flaws though, and I would like to discuss one of
them here.
The traversal framework has this concept of pruning, which ba
10 matches
Mail list logo
