Lets a) stop top-posting (Gilles has asked politely a couple of times now) and b) stay focused on solving the problems we actually have. We could endlessly debate refactoring approaches. Or we could fix the stuff blocking 3.0 and get a release out. Let's do that.
Phil On Oct 6, 2011, at 6:33 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah... but this is a rough neighborhood for folk like you and me. > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Greg Sterijevski > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> If you really think about, all of the decomposition classes should be >> handled by factories. The decompositions all seem to occur in the >> constructor. Everything else is derived from those results, so one could >> argue that the actual decomposition code could be written very procedurally >> and put into the factory as a static private method. The returned class >> from >> the factory would be nothing more than a container of the results and >> methods to get the data and derivatives of the data. >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
