Parameter names - bug 155628

[Shane H. W. Travis]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Gervase Markham wrote:

> Shane H. W. Travis wrote:
> >>Of course, you could make aliases...
> >
> > I'm offering to clean up our
> > make it more consistent, professional throughout so that
> > it conforms to a single style, thus making it both more readable and
> > maintainable.
>
> No, you aren't :-)

Yes, I am, Gerv.

I cannot believe the hubris.  Where do you get off telling me why I am or am
not doing something? What, exactly, makes you think that you know what's
going on in my own mind better than I do?

You're obviously not familiar with my work on the documents, where any patch
I've up loaded has *also* included a re-formatting of the SGML for at least
50 lines around that patch, and sometimes as much as the whole document (see
my recent FAQ overhaul).


> If you were, you'd be changing the formatting of a
> load of code first,

I can do this on docs because only about three people ever look at the
documents. If I thought I could get away with re-indenting the entirety of
the code base to match an agreed-on style, I'd do it... but I expect that
the hue and cry against such a widespread change for 'such minimal gain'
would be... well... would be much like this one has started out being. Are
you going to tell me that you'd support such an initiative? If so, I'd love
to hear it.

> and then refactoring bits so that they worked
> exactly the same but were more consistent with other bits, single-styled
> and readable

You're assuming I know what the heck you're talking about. Bug references
please?


> But anyway, if we want to spend time trying to look good,

What's this 'we'? Are you offering to help fix this bug? Speaking on my
behalf? Or do you just have a mouse in your pocket? :-)


> I suggest this is not the best way to be spending it.

"This doesn't match Gerv's priorities," and, "This isn't what Gerv would
consider to be a productive use of time," are perfectly valid reasons for
*Gerv* not to do it, but guess what? Not everyone in the world is Gerv!
(thank Ghu...)  Some people have different priorities, and are willing to
spend their time in ways that Gerv doesn't necessarily consider 'the best'!

Hyperbole aside, if you've got (what you consider to be) better ways to
accomplish the same goals I stated in the opening paragraph that you *would*
be willing to support, I'm willing to listen.


When I made the initial offer, I did not know about Dave's multi-panel
editparams patch.  (His post precedes mine by 45 minutes because I mentioned
to him I was going to take the bug, and then went away to write out my plan
while he posted. I ended up in a mid-air collision with him.) Even if I had
(even now that I do), I am *still* making the offer... and here's why.

Had I attacked this bug in June of 2004, when Dave was still swamped with no
end in sight, and certainly no time to work on his patch even though he
wanted to... it would have gotten been done, approved (said Dave in IRC),
and in the codebase.  Then, if/when the multi-panel editparams came around,
the UI layer would have been wiped off... leaving only the improvements to
the code base.

... which is exactly what's going to happen anwyay!

(Or, at least, that's what we *think* is going to happen. I completely
believe Dave when he says that this is at the top of his priority list,
and he wants to work on it in January... but if that doesn't come to pass,
it won't be the first time that Real Life has gotten in the way of
someone's best coding intentions, now will it?)

I'm offering to fix this now, in the full knowledge that part of the fix may
be rendered irrelevant by future work. Even if that happens, I won't mind...
because at least it will have had *some* good effect, in that it will have
cleaned up the code a little and made it more consistent. See, I believe
that well-formatted code is a good thing, and I'm willing to actually *do*
the trivial, mind-numbing work to make it happen, rather than just wring my
hands because it isn't there.

Now, if you think that doing this is stupid, or shortsighted, or damaging to
the project, or a waste of my time...  well, you've got a right to your
opinion. Heck, I even *asked* you for your opinion.

But don't presume that you know me, or my motivations -- even if you try to
make it less offensive by putting a smiley at the end, and especially not
when my actions have already put the lie to your words.


Shane H.W. Travis       | Anyone who is capable of getting themselves
travis at sedsystems.ca    |  made President should on no account be allowed
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan |  to do the job.  -- Douglas Adams, HHGTTG