Closed Code7R closed 1 year ago
I never respond to anger or aggression. The change is not harmless. It introduces superfluous statements. It increases the LOC. LOC has cost. DRY. DRY.
Uhm, what? I hope you realize that destroying someones else work without any warning or a chance to fix it is disrespectful and can be considered (at least passive) aggression.
And yes, it is harmless. What is the actual harm? You mentioned:
They are ONLY superfluous from the perspective of the current compilation units. But not when interpreted stand-alone (like, by a static code analyzer). Then they would be not compilable. So in the previous state, every user of those headers got REPEATEDLY the burden of establishing the proper inclusion chain to supply them with needed definitions. Therefore, my changes did actually improve on DRY. So, not sure why you mention it at all.
And regarding LOC, sorry, DRY and LOC-reduction don't necessarily go hand in hand, sometimes you need to choose the lesser evil. And this was adding a few more extra lines while using smaller headers. Would that cause more syscalls? Probably. Is this a problem? Not really. And considering the number of effective lines itself, I just checked sloccount. Delta of about ~0.00609 percent compared to all cpp code. Peanuts.
I just checked what else can still be reduced and yes, some lines from .cc files can be removed now. Those now really did become superfluous. But please don't complain about too many changed files, you cannot have the cake and eat it.
I have had it with your public rants. Github has adviced me to add you to my blocked users. I have followed that advice. You still know how to contact me personally and I will respond to that for as long as it is kind and respectful.
So there was no response on 06ef4f455957e37aed771346db0245911d05f3ae but I'd still demand it.
This change is harmless. It does not really increase the precious build time nor should it have side effects. But if fixes things, even if they don't appear in the default compilation activity.