W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > September 2004

Re: splitting &preparse

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:42:26 +0200
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <r02010300-1035-F3C18B300C6A11D98FFD0030657B83E8@[]>

Hash: SHA1

Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org> wrote:

>I just did a few CVS commits to split &preparse into two separate
>subroutines (now that it's called twice): [...]
>If this was a really bad idea [...] please tell me.

[/me puts on the nitpicking hat]

Well, I actually think it's a bad idea (otherwise it would probably have been
that way already), because now we have two subroutines that in the abstract
perform the exact same function. However, I do consider the tradeoff you've
made -- i.e. the sub performs two unrelated functions so it should be
split/separated -- an equally valid one (just one I happen to disagree with).

IOW, no I don't think this change was the best design for it, but that's just
my opinion; and I think we should go by your opinion on this issue. :-)

[/me feels wonderfully schitzo :-) ]

I'll try to take a look at that code to see if they can be further simplified,
but I think Ville is more familiar with HTML::Parser so he's probably the one
to spot any issues.

Initial thought: can we abstract this out further so that there is a
&preparse() that takes a sub-ref as an argument and &preparse_foo() both call
this sub with the necessary code ref for their specific function?

- -- 
If you believe that will stop spammers, you're sadly misled. Rusty hooks,
rectally administered fuel oil enemas, and the gutting of their machines,
*that* stops spammers!                                         -- Saundo

Version: PGP SDK 3.0.3

Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2004 07:42:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:54:46 UTC