Re: The rand() can of worms
>
> Bad points:
> 1) Leaks
> 2) Inconsistent style
> 3) Really bizzare macros, etc.
Let's put one thing straigt: I merged it already in this early stage (I KNEW
it wasn't yet the way it should be, for example the macro thingy: It started
out as 2line-macro's, but went bigger. In the optimization and reflection
stage, I certainly whould have converted it to a function, but that stage
wasn't yet reached) because I thought I would ****FINALLY ****** get
comments on the whole thing (AND NOT ABOUT THE PRECISE IMPLEMENTATION, SINCE
I STATED VERY CLEARLY THAT WAS ****NOT**** YET WHERE YOU NEEDED TO PAY
ATTENTION TO).
Maybe you don't understand my way of coding (emphasis on CORRECTNESS, the
rest comes in later stages). In fact I was REALLY in fast-coding mode
because I wanted to commit/merge it before the big part of that introduction
I was co-organising. I thought you would be able to discuss it, so after I
had time again, I could react to it (in fact, I even doubted wether I got
any reactions, since you all didn't seem to care about rand()).
I really dislike the way you are handling with this issue: first silently
agree, and when nearly FINISHED, go do difficult. In the Netherlads we have
a word for this kind of people, but I'm not going to write it down here...
--jeroen
(still very angry)
Thread (7 messages)