>> What kind of decoupling did you have in mind? > > Not specifying that each skin has to have exactly one lc identifier > and then starting to rely on this requirement and generate all sorts > of secondary names, identifiers, paths, class names, etc. from that. > E.g why not just ask that skin for it's localized name?
I second this, code (skin or extension) should be expressive and if possible be decoupled. Doing all sorts of magic behind a curtain may save some line of code but it certainly does not improve readability or expressiveness and makes it prone to breakage if some of the "magic" disappears. On 6/2/14, Stephan Gambke <s7ep...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 June 2014 22:45, Daniel Friesen <dan...@nadir-seen-fire.com> wrote: >> What kind of decoupling did you have in mind? > > Not specifying that each skin has to have exactly one lc identifier > and then starting to rely on this requirement and generate all sorts > of secondary names, identifiers, paths, class names, etc. from that. > E.g why not just ask that skin for it's localized name? > > I know there is loads of legacy code to deal with here and this > business with the message identifiers for the skin names in particular > is not the object of the on-going changes. It's just that I'd rather > not have an explicit requirement introduced specifying that there must > be exactly one all-purpose lower-case id per skin. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
