On 21 January 2015 at 10:54, Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Greg Bellows <greg.bell...@linaro.org> writes: > >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> I know why we do this (especially given where my attempt ended up) but >>> perhaps we could at list have a single state aware accessor so we don't >>> end up duplicating this test all over the place? >> >> I'd happily add an accessor function, but I only found 1 other >> location that does this conditional so I'm not sure it is warranted. > > The migration/serialisation code? Today one other, tomorrow just one more?
Meh. I suggested to Greg that just inlining this at point of use was the simplest approach. Maybe one day we'll clean this stuff up but yet another accessor function doesn't seem too great either. -- PMM
