| 1 |
On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 19:08:55 Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: |
| 2 |
> Excerpts from Mike Frysinger's message of Thu Oct 14 00:32:40 +0200 2010: |
| 3 |
> > On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 18:13:18 Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Mike Frysinger's message of Wed Oct 13 23:46:43 +0200 2010: |
| 5 |
> > > > On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 15:57:17 Amadeusz Żołnowski wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > > And why putting different tasks into one function? |
| 7 |
> > > > |
| 8 |
> > > > for the same reason we dont have separate test binaries: test_exist, |
| 9 |
> > > > test_file, test_dir, etc... |
| 10 |
> > > > |
| 11 |
> > > > it makes more sense in my mind to combine the functionality. |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > So the only argument for having more complicated, less intuitive and |
| 14 |
> > > less readable function is the old 'test' program? Please, reconsider |
| 15 |
> > > my solution with more reason. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > we prioritize differently. i prefer unified code with options. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> In which part it's unified? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
the file checking & status accumulation. extending my code to add more |
| 22 |
options in the future is easier as well. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> As I said it doesn't conform much to 'test' convention. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
sure it does |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
this thread is going nowhere. i believe my proposal is the way to go, and we |
| 29 |
arent arguing over anything of too much value (i.e. bike shedding). no one |
| 30 |
else has an opinion, so ive gone my route. |
| 31 |
-mike |
Archives