[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev Dead Code, Part 2
From: |
mattack |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev Dead Code, Part 2 |
Date: |
Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:26:07 -0800 (PST) |
On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Henry Nelson wrote:
>Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:25:37 +0900 (JST)
>From: Henry Nelson <address@hidden>
>Reply-To: address@hidden
>To: address@hidden
>Subject: Re: lynx-dev Dead Code, Part 2
>
>> Based on this, I think I can safely advocate the complete eradication
>> of HTAAServ.c and HTHistory.c.
>
>Not "eradication", please. Simply delete them from the list of object
>files in the makefile.in, with a comment that you have done so, and they
>will not be linked in. Either that or wrap the whole of the files in
>one big ifdef (which Klaus already indicated would probably be possible
>for a general use Lynx).
I am missing something.. If it's completely unused code, why not obsolete the
file? (The code is all in some cvs repository or something right?)
I mean, if there are revisions of Lynx source code back through history, it
would be possible to see when these functions *were* used.. But I don't
see why you can't make it so people don't get the file unless they really really
want it..
>
>> In the next week or so I should be able to get around to a more
>> sophisticated analysis of the dead code in lynx, using a graph algorithm
>> to look for unattached call trees.
>
>Don't get me wrong, though, what you are doing (and have been doing; it has
>not gone unnoticed) is a Godsend to Lynx and VERY welcome from this corner.
>
>__Henry
>
address@hidden
- lynx-dev Dead Code, Part 2, John Bley, 1999/03/11
- Re: lynx-dev Dead Code, Part 2, dickey, 1999/03/11
- Re: lynx-dev Dead Code, Part 2, dickey, 1999/03/11
- Re: lynx-dev Dead Code, Part 2, dickey, 1999/03/11
- Re: lynx-dev Dead Code, Part 2, Henry Nelson, 1999/03/11
- Re: lynx-dev Dead Code, Part 2, Henry Nelson, 1999/03/11