[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld
From: |
David Levine |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld |
Date: |
Sun, 09 Dec 2012 14:01:11 -0600 |
Paul V. wrote:
> i would have rewritten m_getfld.c a year ago if i hadn't thought that
> its API layering was one of its big problems and that a correctness
> preserving transformation of code that implements a bad idea is not the
> way to improve the overall system. maybe i was wrong.
I don't think so. There are 78 or so call sites and it's
used for different purposes. I think that getting to a
decent API is much more important and a better investment.
> let me ask: if i fix m_getfld.c by replacement, including major changes
> at every call site, would that patch get any daylight? i'm not unwilling
> to work on it, i'm just unwilling to let the work languish because it's
> too "edgy" for a conservative code base.
I'm confident that the test suite ("make check") can verify
correctness. It doesn't check performance, but I expect
that enough of us have big folders we can run inc, pick,
etc., on. And a variety of perf tests would be welcome.
David
- Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld,
David Levine <=