Re: [Boost-build] module_action test broken by Boost.Jam changes.

From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-09 11:19:07

Jurko Gospodnetic' wrote:
>    Hi Rene.
> 
>> PS. I also reverted some of the white space, and style changes. Such 
>> changes make it much harder to follow the relevant history of the bjam 
>> code. Which given how depressingly hard it already is to follow that C 
>> code, I'd rather reduce the obfuscation of the change history.
> 
>    Ok. Btw. does this 'no-touchy' rule hold only for bjam C sources or 
> for other Boost Build/Jam code as well?

It only applies to the bjam C code.

>    IMHO it is better practice to nibble at complicated code, make it 
> cleaner piece by piece, then to say 'this is too complicated, do not 
> touch it if it ain't broken'.

Oh, it's certainly broken ;-) But considerably less broken than it's 
been in the past.

> Makes the code much less fragile in the 
> end and eventually even removes/reduces the complication.

Sure, I'm a big believer of improving all code I touch. But bjam is one 
exception. And is similar in treatment to Boost library code where I try 
to keep the original author's style. The only time I change the "style" 
og bjam code is when I rewrite whole parts of it. For example I did that 
with execnt.c some time ago.

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo