What kind of
decoupling did you have in mind?
Not specifying that each skin has to have exactly one lc identifier
and then starting to rely on this requirement and generate all sorts
of secondary names, identifiers, paths, class names, etc. from that.
E.g why not just ask that skin for it's localized name?
I second this, code (skin or extension) should be expressive and if
possible be decoupled. Doing all sorts of magic behind a curtain may
save some line of code but it certainly does not improve readability
or expressiveness and makes it prone to breakage if some of the
"magic" disappears.
On 6/2/14, Stephan Gambke <s7eph4n(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 June 2014 22:45, Daniel Friesen <daniel(a)nadir-seen-fire.com> wrote:
What kind of
decoupling did you have in mind?
Not specifying that each skin has to have exactly one lc identifier
and then starting to rely on this requirement and generate all sorts
of secondary names, identifiers, paths, class names, etc. from that.
E.g why not just ask that skin for it's localized name?
>
> I know there is loads of legacy code to deal with here and this
> business with the message identifiers for the skin names in particular
> is not the object of the on-going changes. It's just that I'd rather
> not have an explicit requirement introduced specifying that there must
> be exactly one all-purpose lower-case id per skin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l