[Uml-devel] Re: CVS developer access

[Jens Krüger]

Am Montag, 14. Oktober 2002 00:18 schrieb Jonathan Riddell:
> > Currently I'm working at the import of the old uml files. It is an other
> > way that Luis selected. My idea was to import the data directly into
> > umbrello to avoid the conversion programm. I finished the first version
> > of the implementation. All old files you put on your own page may be
> > imported correctly (hopefully).
> >
> > In the attached patch all my changes I have done are includes. Please try
> > to import all old files you may found. If you find some problems it would
> > be nice to get these files to find out what are the problems.
>

> That worked brilliantly.  How close do you think that is to being ready to
> put in CVS?
>

I don't know. My work does not support the version 5 of the uml files. I don't 
know if there exist any files having this file version. If yes, we have to 
add the support for this version. Also missing the support for older 
versions, but there are only few lines of code they have to be added. Most of 
them is in the association import .

> Are there any advantaged to using Luis' programme?
>

Does anybody knows this? 

> All those serialise() methods...are they used by the clipboard and does
> this patch have any effect on it?
>

I understand this, there was to much commits on the cvs after the generation 
of my patch against the repository. I made it on Saturday about 11 p.m. 
(CEST).

The addition of 'unnecessary' statements is from my point of view a good help
for reading the code. I hacked a lot of code in the last years and I found out 
that the readability of a code grows, you write a return statement at the end 
of a void function.
I know that the current compiler do not expect a return statment if one leaves 
the function. In the current specification of C++ is written, that the 
compiler add automatically the 'return 0' statement if it is missed. I don't 
know, what the next generation of compilers tell to this problem. I try to 
write my code in that way, that it looks good, is efficient and short. The 
only exception from the shortness of code  is the addition of the return 
statement in a void function. If all other say, we should not write this 
return statements, I will respect this decision. 

> The patch didn't apply perfectly, probably because of commits I've made
> today (my uni had it's electricity substation shut down today so wasn't
> able to get at my e-mail).  You also seem to like putting in unnecessary
> return statements, feel free to take out messy coding practice but don't
> put it in!
>
> Jonathan Riddell
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Uml-devel mailing list
> umbrello-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/umbrello-devel