Costin, your "elegant" as all to do with "robust". Hard to understand and maintain code can hardly be robust. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 20:12 > > I disagree with you about 2 points - I think 3.3 is all about > "elegance". Try to look at the code - and compare it with 3.2 or 4.0. > Of course, it's a matter of taste - but the refactoring was done exactly > to make the code more "elegant" ( cleaner, easier to understand and > maintain ). >
- Refactoring: oo-spaghetti-o's? Roy Wilson
- realm always checked? Kyle F. Downey
- Re: realm always checked? Craig R. McClanahan
- Re: realm always checked? Kyle F. Downey
- TC 4.0 vs. TC 3.x and division of labor Kyle F. Downey
- Re: TC 4.0 vs. TC 3.x and division of labor Jon Stevens
- Re: TC 4.0 vs. TC 3.x and division of lab... Kyle F. Downey
- Re: TC 4.0 vs. TC 3.x and division of... Jon Stevens
- Re: TC 4.0 vs. TC 3.x and divisi... Jon Stevens
- Re: TC 4.0 vs. TC 3.x and division of labor cmanolache
- Re: Mud (Was: [OT] Holiday Reading - Refa... Paulo Gaspar
- Re: Mud (Was: [OT] Holiday Reading - Refactoring) Stein M. Eliassen
- MUD: when to refactor or reconstruct? Roy Wilson