Björn Stenberg schrieb:
> Thomas Martitz wrote:
>
>> It looks weird, indeed. But it shouldn't have been called
>> nat_toupper in the first place imo but something more generic
>> instead.
>>
>
> Then change it. There is no point in keeping confusing code for historical reasons.
>
>
Frank Gevaerts schrieb:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:36:09AM +0200, Al Le wrote:
>
>> On 12.08.2009 01:13, Thomas Martitz wrote:
>>
>> I would also remove the code that is now deactivated via "#if 0." Such
>> things always make me ask whether the author wanted to just temporarily
>> deactivate the code or ...? The similarity to the original code must not
>> necesserily be maintained in this particular case IMO. We should make
>> code easily readable and understandable instead.
>>
>
> I agree. We're not going to merge back from wherever this code came
> from, since we seem to have pretty different requirements, and it's
> pretty simple code anyway. Best clean it up.
>
> Frank
>
>

Well, ok. I just thought it's a good idea to not change imported code
too much when not really needed.

Regards.
Received on 2009-08-12