[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bug #25608 and the comment-cache branch

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: Bug #25608 and the comment-cache branch
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 00:08:41 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0

On 03.02.2017 19:29, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

The objectors do not seem to want compromise - they want comment-cache
to be wholly abandoned.

It's silly to seek a compromise between implementations. Rather, we should discuss hard requirements (with some test cases).

And then we should seek the simplest solution that satisfies all of our requirements.

They object to it for reasons I don't
understand, despite the fact that it elegantly solves a long standing
problem that continues to cause pain on a frequent basis.

Elegance is in the eye of the beholder. It certainly doesn't seem elegant to me, design-wise.

If you (or anybody else) could summarize what these objections are, I'd
be very grateful.

"It introduces a second source of truth" seems like a concise summary.

At best, it'll use more memory than it has to. At worst, we risk divergence in the information contained in those sources (so functions depending on one or the other will behave in incompatible fashion). That means nasty bugs that aren't easy to track down.

Note that there has been NO constructive criticism of comment-cache.

That's insulting, Alan.

Nobody is pointing out problems it causes or might cause.

And that's false.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]