>Frankly, I think you should have given Nicolas the benefit of the >doubt before charging forth to rollback his commit, and just asked the
>question here like I did in February when I had a suggestion about the >original implementation. Given that the change amounted to about 3 lines of code and that the implementation mixed in two separate pieces of functionality, among other things, I didn't see much harm in reverting it until there was discussion on the feature and a more maintainable solution presented. Additionally the refactor I intended to do was going to completely replace the code in question, but without understanding the purpose and general agreement, I would have either had to silently drop it or try to figure it out and faithfully refactor and unit test something I wasn't sure why it was there. I figured it would be more clear if I first reverted the code, raised the question and then refactored. I don't have an issue with the feature per se, just the way it was implemented, both process and code. If we decide to implement this, I'll happily integrate it into the work I did to refactor it (in fact I had in mind this piece when I coded the patch to make it easy to drop in via a new translation method). --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
