hmm, I got your message a minute before I sent my last patch, didn't notice it, sorry ;)
David García Garzón wrote: > Doxygenating back > A attribute1; ///< the documentation for attribute > Doxygenating front > /// the documentation for attribute > A attribute1; Thanks! Nice to know, should've noted that when you explained that to bennett I think some time ago... I actually removed the doxygen comments, because I realised they were for parameters and I though maybe that's not such a good idea, but I'll bring them back then :) > std::endl implies std::flush Oh, very nice to know too, thanks! :) > And yes, commented out code is a hell. It is better to use svn and patches as > backups. Ill commit it so you can remove it on the next patches. > > Your next step, doing the pool filling in a loop after having filled it all > instead filling it incrementally taking the content of those new vectors. > Which stone is safer for you? Implementing that on the destructor (you should > make available the pool and the extractor to the destructor) or implementing > it on the dumper (you should provide const accessors to the new vectors). > > As you removed pool and extractor members, the first option may seem a back > step, it is a safer longer way. Depending on how you perform the second > option, it may be a dangerous jump but it is more close to the end and you > can do it carefully. You are the one on the rope. The last patch takes the second route... (though I tried a third one on my way up... and it was definitely the wrong one, had to back up and start again omitting the faulty footholds ;) ) Of course accessors are coming soon. romcio _______________________________________________ Clam-devel mailing list Clam-devel@llistes.projectes.lafarga.org https://llistes.projectes.lafarga.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clam-devel
