Re: [lmi] Preliminary emit_ledger code refactoring

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 15:59:52 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> Maybe it's just me, but I find conditionals easier to understand than a
GC> class hierarchy.

 I can hardly argue with this. My argument is that the objective advantage
of having all code related to the same emission kind in a single place
instead of being scattered around is more important than the largely
subjective preference for a more or less object-oriented programming style,
but if the weight of the latter is larger than that of the former in your
eyes, I really can't add anything else.

 The important question now is whether you plan any more changes to this
code or if this is its final form and if I should already rebase my
existing patches on your changes? This is not going to be trivial as the
code in svn is now completely different from both the original version and
the one I have, so I'm going to have to resolve conflicts for all my
changes. It's not the end of the world (with git, with svn I'd have
already started crying my eyes out), but I'd prefer to do it only once if
possible, so if you plan more changes in this area I'd rather wait for
them.

 In particular I wonder about

        /// Each member function (except the lightweight ctor and dtor)
        /// returns time spent, which is almost always wanted.

comment. Does it really mean that you are not going to apply the patch
refactoring the timers neither? For me this one seemed to be even more
obviously the right thing to do as the existing code could be used as a
nice example of why separation of concerns is a good thing to have, so I'd
be rather surprised if you didn't agree with it. But then, of course, I'm
already surprised, so this is not a good argument neither...

 Anyhow, please let me know if you plan any more changes or whether I
should rebase on the current trunk.

 Thanks in advance,
VZ