1 |
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:50:02PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
2 |
> On Wednesday 26 October 2005 23:56, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
3 |
> > I've attached a quickly thrown together patch for it, which works here, but |
4 |
> > we really need to get this whole thing down pat. Perhaps usage of doebuild |
5 |
> > without specifying tree should be deprecated and the code audited for any |
6 |
> > usage without it? Making tree a keyword parameter will break too many |
7 |
> > external things so that's not really an option... |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Updated patch; I missed a call to merge(). I really don't like this patch |
10 |
> though because it touches way too much stuff. Anybody have any ideas for a |
11 |
> better way of doing it? |
12 |
Offhand, don't pass mytree around like that; pass it into the |
13 |
constructor, assign to the obj's namespace, and have treelink pass the |
14 |
saved value into doebuild. |
15 |
|
16 |
That's how I did it in 2.1 at least; been a long while, but don't |
17 |
recall any major issues with that route. Plus side, heck of a lot |
18 |
less modification to methods signatures, just the objects behaviour. |
19 |
~harring |