On 01/02/12 10:55, Andras Timar wrote: > Hi Stephan, > > 2012/2/1 Stephan Bergmann <sberg...@redhat.com>: >> >> Unless there's someone who screams "but all this should go away in the next >> couple months, anyway!" I would therefore go ahead and clean that code up, >> ridding it of any tools dependencies (should hopefully not be too difficult >> to base it either on sal or even on the plain C++ standard library). > > No, I'm against rewriting them from scratch, because I fear the > regressions, so I don't think they should go away. I support your idea > of refactoring.
actually regressions should be easy to prevent here: just build 2 full trees with all options, e.g. enable all extensions, help, all languages; then diff the files produced by the tools. >> An alternative might be to re-write those programs in Python (seeing that >> there is already one other Python script, po2lo; re-writing in Perl would >> *not* be an option, Perl not being a language to write programs in in the >> first place). However, given the nature of those tools' work, regressions >> might be hard to spot, so I would like to keep modifications to the code in >> bounds. >> > The nature of these tools, i.e. they manipulate text files, may make > someone think that it would be a good job for a high level scripting > language, but considering the performance and stability of the build, > I would like to keep the current C++ tools, too. I prefer evolution > over revolution. :) it may well be the case that a from-scratch rewrite takes less time and results in a faster program than refactoring the existing C++ code with its decades worth of cruft. but that is of course pure speculation :) _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
