Subject: Re: UT_Pair
From: Vlad Harchev (hvv@hippo.ru)
Date: Fri Nov 10 2000 - 13:02:19 CST
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Mike Nordell wrote:
> Vlad Harchev wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Mike Nordell wrote:
> > > This might be nit-picking to some.
> [... UT_Pair]
> > 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...
It was used in prototype of (hackish version of) CJK patch. I renamed a lot
of members, added some more methods and so UT_Pair started to exist (it was
hj_pair in original version and depended on glib).
BTW Hash can't be used since items need to be ordered and both components
could be used as a key.
> > 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").
Sorry for giving it stupid name. Just add
typedef UT_Pair UT_Tuple_string_string;
or something like that in ut_pair.h and save your time from rewriting it.
> > 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
> (IMHO).
Yes, of course this would be accepted with pleasure, but since human resources
of AW development project are that constrained, it's more optimal to use human
time for something else (e.g. fixing user-visible bugs).
> But, I also want to give the original author of this class some credit for
> its interface. It was pretty good.
I agree.
> > There are several hundreds of bugs in bugzilla - why don't check them
> > instead?
>
> The reasons are too numerous to explain right now. Let's just say: When time
> (and other stuff)permits: I will.
OK. It's your time anyway.
> /Mike
>
Best regards,
-Vlad
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Fri Nov 10 2000 - 13:21:51 CST