RSS/Atom feed Twitter
Site is read-only, email is disabled
  1. Chat
  2. Useful links
  3. Polls

Featured content

visitable_needs_visiting

This discussion is connected to the gegl-developer-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.

5 of 5 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.
visitable_needs_visiting Henrik Akesson 12 Mar 17:08
  visitable_needs_visiting Martin Nordholts 13 Mar 06:58
   visitable_needs_visiting Henrik Akesson 13 Mar 10:04
    visitable_needs_visiting Martin Nordholts 13 Mar 17:20
    visitable_needs_visiting Sven Neumann 13 Mar 17:33
Henrik Akesson
2009-03-12 17:08:14 UTC (over 16 years ago)

visitable_needs_visiting

The two implementations of GeglVisitable always returns TRUE on calls to "visitable_needs_visiting" (see gegl-node:957 and gegl-pad:319).

It is used by gegl-visitor.c, but makes it more difficult to understand the code.

Can I remove it?

Henrik

Martin Nordholts
2009-03-13 06:58:07 UTC (over 16 years ago)

visitable_needs_visiting

Henrik Akesson wrote:

The two implementations of GeglVisitable always returns TRUE on calls to "visitable_needs_visiting" (see gegl-node:957 and gegl-pad:319).

It is used by gegl-visitor.c, but makes it more difficult to understand the code.

Can I remove it?

I think you should keep it. It doesn't make the code extremely more complicated and keeps the door open for optimizations

- Martin

Henrik Akesson
2009-03-13 10:04:16 UTC (over 16 years ago)

visitable_needs_visiting

From where I come from, it's a no-no to keep unused code "just in case".

Normally, this kind of code tends to accumulate and never be cleaned out. On top of that, the "just in case" code tends to have to be rewritten when finally needed, as it is seldom fit for the purpose (the imagined case is often not the real case).

But, all that said, if you like to keep it, I'll respect that.

Henrik

2009/3/13 Martin Nordholts

Henrik Akesson wrote:

The two implementations of GeglVisitable always returns TRUE on calls to "visitable_needs_visiting" (see gegl-node:957 and gegl-pad:319).

It is used by gegl-visitor.c, but makes it more difficult to understand the code.

Can I remove it?

I think you should keep it. It doesn't make the code extremely more complicated and keeps the door open for optimizations

- Martin

Martin Nordholts
2009-03-13 17:20:28 UTC (over 16 years ago)

visitable_needs_visiting

Henrik Akesson wrote:

From where I come from, it's a no-no to keep unused code "just in case". Normally, this kind of code tends to accumulate and never be cleaned out. On top of that, the "just in case" code tends to have to be rewritten when finally needed, as it is seldom fit for the purpose (the imagined case is often not the real case).

Your arguments make sense and I have changed my mind

- Martin

Sven Neumann
2009-03-13 17:33:05 UTC (over 16 years ago)

visitable_needs_visiting

Hi,

On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 10:04 +0100, Henrik Akesson wrote:

From where I come from, it's a no-no to keep unused code "just in

case". Normally, this kind of code tends to accumulate and never be cleaned out. On top of that, the "just in case" code tends to have to be rewritten when finally needed, as it is seldom fit for the purpose (the imagined case is often not the real case).

What really matters here is what the intention was behind adding this method. What other implementations of GeglVisitable are planned and does it makes sense to have this method for any of them?

If we can't answer this question, then that code should rather be removed.

Sven