https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145175
--- Comment #12 from Eyal Rozenberg <eyalr...@gmx.com> --- (In reply to Chris Sherlock from comment #11) Which person has which nick and which function w.r.t. LO development? :-) Also... > [06:08:52] <noelgrandin> it would be a WONTFIX Already explained why that can't be right - whether one believes the config manager should be empty or not. And the IRC chat explained it too... > I respectfully disagree with the reviewer - a straight loop is fine for now. It's not _terrible_; it's just a question of style. I didn't say I reject the patch or anything. > Eyal, if you want to improve upon the patch, why not fix it after the patch > is committed. Well, possibly because I'm not really an LO developer. There's only a small chance I would dive into checking out, building and testing. > I can't see any reason why this is more or less readable than having to setup > several lambdas for a custom built for_each_if() function! Well, because it separates out the different semantic aspects of the code rather than weaving them together. It is idiomatic according to this paradigm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2tWOdzgXHA but obviously it is at least partially a matter of taste. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
