Re: [Libreoffice] l10ntools clean-up?

On 02/01/2012 03:16 PM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 09:26 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> > Unless there's someone who screams "but all this should go away in the
> > next couple months, anyway!" I would therefore go ahead and clean that
> > code up, ridding it of any tools dependencies (should hopefully not be
> > too difficult to base it either on sal or even on the plain C++ standard
> > library).
>
> l10ntools is nearly the only consumer of ByteStrings (including
> inheriting from ByteStrings, yippee) left in core, if l10ntools drops
> its uses of ByteStrings then ByteString itself can finally go.

Cool.  So I'm assured this tedious work is worth it in multiple 
dimensions...

> So, I'd be a fan of a two-stage pass where ByteString gets removed first
> and that pushed so we can remove the rest of ByteString while the rest
> of the refactoring is going on :-)

My humble attempts at making cfgex tools-free quickly revealed that 
making large parts of l10ntool ByteString-free is a prerequisite anyway. 
 So I switched plans now to get rid of all of them in the first iteration.

Stephan