Hi Patrick -
> Tonight I had some clarity on how the mappings worked. This allowed
> me to make some simplifications and fixes. Would be happy to hear
> what you think.
Interesting. What I think, in short (before taking that time to write more
tests):
a. The new code is IMO correct, and it is more concise, and it behaves
"well-behaved" in more cases (I think ... tests ...) - so this makes it better!
b. However, "a wrong comment is worse than no comment": Please correct (no,
don't delete!) the comments in the code I originally added that are now wrong -
because ...
c. ... what you did is, IMO, a fundamental change in the semantic. This shows
up in my "design text" (which is sort of a long comment, isn't it?), which is
now misleading due to a fundamental assumption that runs through the whole
text, which now does not hold anymore.
I'd like you to change that comment and point out that modification, because
then I know that we have the same view on that semantical issue - and I'll
rewrite the text (and add explanations for the features you added in those two
modifications).
That ok with you?
BTW: I could not have survived that code without having written that text -
including examples. Still, would it be better to split the text into snippets
that go into the source code? ("programmers don't read anything except the
sourcecode" etc.etc.) Did the text help you?
Regards
Harald
--
NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen!
Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
