On 2007/11/28, Tom St Denis <tstdenis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > J.C. Pizarro wrote: > > On 2007/11/28, Tom St Denis <tstdenis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> As I said in my first post on the subject, there is no "hard set" > >> rule about when to refactor. If your class has 3 methods and > >> is 75 lines of code, it's probably better to have it all organized > >> in one unit/file. But if your class has 15 methods, and requires > >> 1500 lines of code, you're probably better off refactoring it. > >> > > > > Well, and how is this GCC in reality? > > > > svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk > > $ svn info > > ... > > Revision: 130486 > > > While I won't defend the GCC process (mostly because I'm not part of it) > I will say that quite a few files are machine generated. i386.c for > instance is generated from i386.md isn't it? I've not idea if i386.c is generated from i386.md. i386.c say nothing that is generated from i386.md or by a generator. I don't believe that i386.c is generated from i386.md because i386.c has large comments that i386.md hasn't. > > Anyways, most OSS projects routinely violate most basic rules of proper > software development. About the only thing they get right is they at > least use some form of revision and bug control. Firefox is another > beast. OpenOffice is a much more annoying offender. Repairing the development's violations is not an offense. It's a good solution to try repair the violated rules of software development. > Tom
