Re: [patch] fix bug 4612

[Andrew Cagney <cagney@redhat.com>]

Kris,

Our guideline is: re-factor early, re-factor often(1).  Here we trust 
and allow Pearly to make a decision such as when to best apply a 
refactorings.

Andrew

(1) A refactoring , by definition, is not part of a functional change 
such as a bug fix.

Kris Van Hees wrote:
> The code duplication between the Disassembler and Memory windows has been
> mentioned during the conf call where I pointed out the various problems
> found with those windows (and their implementation).  It certainly could do
> with a refactoring, although it is too early for that right now.  For one,
> I do not think it is wise to do it as part of a bug fix, and secondly, the
> planned changes to the Memory window will cause it to deviate more from the
> Disassembler window than it does now, so premature refactoring is likely to
> need a (partial) reversal later on.
>
> 	Cheers,
> 	Kris
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:02:19AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>   
>> Pearly,
>>
>> The below looks fine.  Will you be around tuesday morning (your time?).  
>> I'll send you off list some stuff to do with CVS so that you can check this 
>> in.
>>
>> Two things to think about though:
>>
>> -> testing;
>> When making fixes we all endeavor to author the test-case up-front so that 
>> we can directly demonstrate that the change has the intended effect.
>>
>> -> it looks like there is much code duplication between the Disassembler 
>> and Memory windows;
>> an opportunity to refactor?
>>