[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lmi] [lmi-commits] master 9cbda7d 2/4: Simplify
From: |
Vadim Zeitlin |
Subject: |
Re: [lmi] [lmi-commits] master 9cbda7d 2/4: Simplify |
Date: |
Fri, 5 Oct 2018 18:49:34 +0200 |
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 08:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
GC> branch: master
GC> commit 9cbda7d244a0e920f5cac401b06bfd8ce33d9928
GC> Author: Gregory W. Chicares <address@hidden>
GC> Commit: Gregory W. Chicares <address@hidden>
GC>
GC> Simplify
GC>
GC> See the immediately preceding commit.
GC> ---
GC> ledger_evaluator.cpp | 9 +++------
GC> ledger_evaluator.hpp | 4 +---
GC> ledger_pdf_generator_wx.cpp | 2 +-
GC> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
GC>
GC> diff --git a/ledger_evaluator.cpp b/ledger_evaluator.cpp
GC> index 78b5cd8..f2598d0 100644
GC> --- a/ledger_evaluator.cpp
GC> +++ b/ledger_evaluator.cpp
GC> @@ -1000,14 +1000,10 @@ std::string ledger_evaluator::operator()
GC>
GC> void ledger_evaluator::write_tsv
GC> (fs::path const& // pdf_out_file
GC> - ,Ledger const& ledger
GC> ) const
GC> {
GC> - int const length =
value_cast<int>(operator()("GreatestLapseDuration"));
GC> - LMI_ASSERT(ledger.is_composite() == ("1" == operator()("Composite")));
GC> - LMI_ASSERT(ledger.greatest_lapse_dur() == length);
GC> if
GC> - ( !ledger.is_composite()
GC> + ( !("1" == operator()("Composite"))
This is unrelated to the real purpose of this commit (which is to get rid
of the dependency on "ledger" here, IIUC), but I just wonder if we have to
write operator() call explicitly in lmi code or whether we could use a more
readable, IMO, even if not great "(*this)("Composite")" expression instead?
Independently of the answer to this question, it could make sense to add a
named function, e.g. value(), in addition to operator() to ledger_evaluator
as writing value("Composite") would be undoubtedly more readable than
either of the alternatives above.
Regards,
VZ
- Re: [lmi] [lmi-commits] master 9cbda7d 2/4: Simplify,
Vadim Zeitlin <=