On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 10:58:34AM -0800, K. "pestophagous" Heller wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Dirk Hohndel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Dec 2, 2015, at 9:20 PM, K. pestophagous Heller > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> The DiveEventItem(s) need not store a pointer to memory > > > > "need not" is odd. "should not" maybe? > > haha. oddness seems to be a side-effect as i try to internalize the > discipline of using imperative tense in commit messages. i never > developed any habits about verb tense in commit messages, and now that > i am hyper-aware of this concept, it's making me write real weird. > getting afraid to use verbs in general. help!
Relax. Deep breath. It's all good. If I really hate it, I'll rephrase it. Consider this "style suggestions", nothing more. > >> DiveEventItem::recalculatePos is a slot. As many have said, one faces > >> an uphill battle (a losing battle) to try to reason cleanly about > >> ordering and dependency graphs and such between all the various > >> signals and slots. > > > > That's the beauty and the curse of it. It makes things presumably > > easier when writing code - but then it comes back to bite you. > > i am open to the beauty of it. it offers the promise of some great > potential decoupling of components, but it is hindered (for now) > because many subsurface widgets that subclass Qt classes don't act > "object oriented" in terms of encapsulating (hiding) and protecting > their own state. It's a mixed bag. Some do, some don't. Some can't because of weird dependencies which might mean that we haven't abstracted things out in the best possible way. > > Would you re-edit this and re-submit? > > will do tonight. my pleasure. Thanks! /D _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
