--=-KNwYUbNIRuIvTsHc2bZF Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2002-07-14 at 14:35, Vladimir Bormotov wrote: >=20 I'm not going to respond to each individual point, but I will give my general view: 1. I don't have a problem with the clean ups for comma space and space =3D space or space =3D=3D space etc. I don't always type it the same way and I don't entirely notice it. I do have to read all the patches that you send me b/c I _HAVE_ to read them. I won't apply a patch w/o reading an understanding it so if it seems like I'm taking a while its b/c I'm busy with other things. 2. The reason a lot of functions have import module at the beginning of them is b/c I moved stuff around quite a bit. So I figured if I could cut and paste the module w/little or no modification then it made the function more easily used for me or for other things. 3. I am not a full time programmer, I've never had any formal training in programming save one class. I maintain a large number of linux systems for a living and it probably shows in my code. I'm a sysadmin who happens to end up doing a lot of weird stuff. Having said that, I don't find it horribly unreadable code so I'm not sure how much benefit comes from some of the modifications suggested in the style guides. 4. Regarding additional classes. I can see a couple of places where an additional class would be handy but I've not seen a lot of them. Arguments persuading me to remove all functions outside of classes are going to need to be DAMNED impressive. I'm not always taken by additional classes. Frequently, I find they do a lot for abstraction but they also do A LOT for obfuscation. MANY MANY MANY classes make it hard for non-programmers to begin to understand the code, and given that this code is for a utility that A LOT of sysadmins could use it would seem to me to be useful to make sure that they can understand it.=20 I'm not wed to this concept in anyway, and I might be more than glad to get rid of it and add in a bunch of classes. But I learned how to program mostly in perl and some C, so I'm more comfortable with procedural programming. Object Orientation is great for some things but I know what the old yup code looked like and I'm a little afraid of "object orienting" to that extent.=20 5. I'm using this program everyday on quite a few systems and the reason I didn't go with apt-rpm was that I wanted to completely understand what the code was doing when it did it, so if I'm slow in integrating patches its b/c I'm thinking about them and making sure I understand them. So, in summary, I am reading through all the emails regarding style and I'll address them as soon as I can. (refer to my last email about the broken hard drive :) I'd like to make it cleaner looking but it is possible that your concept of cleaner and my concept of cleaner might not gibe. -sv --=-KNwYUbNIRuIvTsHc2bZF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQA9Mcw21Aj3x2mIbMcRAh4NAKCF1ntYgG0fl85CyQPN+c4/Q/GMIwCglMTx QKLaii8R6yoq+RoAanwTs8w= =O4l4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-KNwYUbNIRuIvTsHc2bZF--
