Hi Patrick, El vie, 15-12-2006 a las 17:47 +0100, Patrick Bernaud escribió: > Carlos Nieves Ónega writes: > > [...] > > You are correct. I don't forgot. I meant this is the first time we talk > > about how the code works. The stretching problem is a bug, and I > > consider the SELECTION type like a style comment. > > I would have said a 'code readibility issue' or 'maintainability issue > on the mid to long term'... but yeah that's only vocabulary :).
I think we talked about this by IRC. For those not aware about this, I changed every SELECTION* by a GList* in the glist-dev branch. You suggested to use: typedef SELECTION GList; without changing the remaining code. What I tried to explain was that IMO a GList of objects is _not_ a selection, but it just _could be_ a selection. There are a lot of structures in gaf (OBJECT, ATTRIB,...) having prev and next pointers. IMHO, this doesn't make sense nowadays, although I understand they are there because of historical reasons. I think the right way is to remove the prev and next pointers from those structures and use GLists everywhere. Changing the SELECTION* to a GList* is a first step to convert all those structures. In the future, when more structures are converted into GLists, they could use these GList based functions now only used for selections. Taking that into account, FMPOV the 'code readibility issue' or 'maintainability issue on the mid to long term' means to remove any existing SELECTION in the code, and begin to use GList everywhere. > > [...] > > I don't want you to shut up. I'd like you emailed a "I see these > > problems" when you noticed them, and maybe some discussion about how can > > it be improved where all people (including me) could be able to > > participate. You don't need to have a working proposal just to say you > > don't like using the undo functions. > > I doubt it would have been much different if I had sent a message on > the 1st of December saying something like: > > 'the branch is wrongly using the undo system. As a result there is no > autosave in action, it loses the selection when cancelling, and I do > not see a realistic way to fix that, please do not merge the branch' > > instead of my message on the 6th of December announcing a possible > improvement before the meeting where the technical aspects of the > merge were going to be discussed. I think that makes the difference. If you sent that email the first of december: - you would allow us to think about it and how to address that issue. I think we are a team of developers, and a team is supposed to think and work together. Maybe I'm wrong, and we are alone just working by chance on the same project. - Peter based his work on the glist-dev branch, so there was a high probability that any deep change to the existing code will break his work. - if you had a thought of an alternative at that time, we could have talked about how to coordinate the merging before you started to code. Anyway, we'll never know what would happen, so discussing about this has no sense. Regards, Carlos _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
