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
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk