On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:24:05AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Yes. The LyX core is the domain of a few people right now when it comes > | to contributions. Even worse, most are 'retired' (at least > | de-facto...) and the situation is not improving. The only solution I see > | is to lower the bar as much as possible, and using simple idioms is one > | possibility _I see_. There might be others, but I simply don't see it. > > This use of simple idoms, not be being as C-like as possible.
foo x[4] is perfectly valid C++ if used as a class member. Even if it happens to be legal C as well. > More to simplify code. Be clear with types, algorithms and > interdependencies. No problems with that. I am fine with pos_type etc especially if we could temporarily replace it with a'real' type to check consistent use. > And little to do with f.ex. the use of boost (, which in my POW, > makes the code more explicit and easier to understand.) In some places. In general not. For instance I don't think using boost for pimpling helps understanding at all. It is always another external dependency and therefore another source of failure and perplexity. There is a perfectly working, 'std C++' style idiom for that. > >> IMNSHO you are blatantly wrong. > > > | So why do we get external contributions in the 'simple' areas like | > lib/layouts and src/mathed/ but not in src/*.C? > > Because the core still stinks, are close to impossible to understand > etc. So why don't we fix the core by fixing the used structures instead of polishing what happens to be in there? > And please just get off that mathed horse of yours, there is plenty of > code in src/*.C that is a lot easier to understand and is just as well > written. I am rarely the first one mentioning mathed in such a discussion as I have a kind of 'personal policy' on that (and I hope I don't fail too often there) But once the word is out I don't see a reason to restrict myself. And sure, you are right. Almost everything in the core shines in comparison to e.g. math macros. > >> (this bickering is a better candidate...) > > > | Propose something better to deceide about directions. > > Baby steps, never allow a patch that introduces regressions, stay > stable at all times. Better to move slow than to fall. Ok... So what's next now? Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
