Subject: Re: UT_Pair
From: Mike Nordell (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Nov 10 2000 - 11:00:04 CST
Vlad Harchev wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Mike Nordell wrote:
> > This might be nit-picking to some.
> Do you see any use of it in AW?
Well, it _is_ used. Perhaps it has no real use, but then I fail to see why
it was ever committed...
> I think UT_Hash (or what's there) is enough.
> The UT_Pair is used not very intensively, and only by the CJK-support
> patch specific code.
No matter, it is used. As such I feel it should be as clear as it possibly
could be. Especially since it turned semantics upside down (compared to the
"usual" definition of "pair").
> But if you will rewrite UT_Pair as you wish provided that all other places
> where it's used are also updated and overall logic is preserved and no new
> bugs are introduced - I won't mind.
I, intruduce bugs??? :-) (anyone ever seen me _introduce_ bugs? :-) )
Just kiddin', but this one I will not commit myself but let others have a
look at it before possibly committing. Nevertheless, if this one gets into
the tree, it will be a much more stable implementation, and also more
logically named one, than previously. This is not a thing to complain about,
this is a thing to gratiously accept as an improvement of current code
But, I also want to give the original author of this class some credit for
its interface. It was pretty good.
> There are several hundreds of bugs in bugzilla - why don't check them
The reasons are too numerous to explain right now. Let's just say: When time
(and other stuff)permits: I will.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Fri Nov 10 2000 - 11:00:19 CST