Hi Caolán, On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:55:59 +0100 Caolán McNamara <caolanm@redhat.com> wrote:
namespace libreoffice = com::sun::star;, or something of that nature, in some header probably isn't the worst idea in the world. Though it does generate a lot of churn to go around changing anything, and the other language bindings, e.g. java and so on, wouldn't be affected, which i guess has the potential for some extra confusion.
IMHO doing a "gradual migration" is not a good idea here. Such things should be done in one deep cut, because: - having two names for the same thing will just add to newcomer confusion, esp. if he ends up in a piece of code that mixes both happily. This will one only have benefits once it is completed and will even hurt in the meantime. - historical evidence (tools string vs. sal string) shows how well "gradual transitions" work when not tightly enforced. - we will not tightly enforce this one as it is not providing essential benefits compared to other work. - while it is true that this can be done by EasyHackers, I really dont thing there is any lack of EasyHacks. There are other tasks like: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Easy_Hacks#Get_rid_of_SV_DECL_VARARR.2C_SV_DECL_VARARR_PLAIN.2C_SV_DECL_VARARR_SORT_.... (or migration to the new build system) that also only really benefit the project when fully completed. It is better to have one such EasyHacks finished (and being rewarded by the benefit) than having five such EasyHacks finished 20% (or even 50%) and having no benefit for the project whatsoever. Just my 2 euro cents, Bjoern -- https://launchpad.net/~bjoern-michaelsen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature