| 1 |
Christian Faulhammer wrote: |
| 2 |
> java-pkg-simple: |
| 3 |
> In my eyes, defining all local variables at the beginning of a function |
| 4 |
> makes it easier to read. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Sorry, Fauli, i totally missed your mail as it was only addressed to |
| 7 |
gentoo-dev, while I've been intently watching gentoo-java... |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
java-pkg-simple_src_compile() was designed in a modular fashion, with |
| 10 |
blocks for compile, javadoc and package which are pretty much |
| 11 |
independent from one another. That's the reason why every one of these |
| 12 |
blocks has its own local variables, instead of a single set of locals |
| 13 |
for the whole function. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Originally I wrote them as independent functions, and they might well be |
| 16 |
turned into such independent functions by adding a few function headers |
| 17 |
and braces. So if ever the need arises, that's what I'd do. Splitting |
| 18 |
locals would increase the footprint of such a change. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
From my #gentoo-java log from 2009-01-03: |
| 21 |
(11:24:36 UTC) MvG: |
| 22 |
java-pkg-simple_src_compile has five clear parts; would it make sense to |
| 23 |
place these in separate functions? This would allow more flexibility for |
| 24 |
ebuilds that want to use some but not all of these. |
| 25 |
(11:26:20 UTC) ali_bush: |
| 26 |
MvG: up to you, if they are clear, they could alway be separated out later |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
To sum things up: yes, I could change the local declarations, but I'd |
| 29 |
rather keep things as they are, unless you object more vehemently. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Greetings, |
| 32 |
Martin von Gagern (MvG) |
Archives