Re: Configuration options [was: Policy question - to PM3D or not to PM3D?]

[Ethan M. <merritt@u.washington.edu>]

On Wednesday 13 July 2005 03:07 pm, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> >>After that, I'd propose making the BINARY_DATA_FILE permanent too.  
> > 
> > I am opposed to removing the EXPERIMENTAL warnings on that one.
> > The binary data file code is still very messy, and having it set off
> > by conditional flags is the only way anyone will ever be able to find
> > pieces for cleanup.
> 
> I believe the new code is active by default in the CVS version and
> people have been using it for a year or more.

Do you really have a handle on how much use it has seen?

I think it is more fair to say that people have been using the
non-binary data path of the new code. As to the actual binary
data path, I've been finding bugs in it even though I don't actually
use it for anything. I just trip over them while working on other
code parts, or when I hit compiler warnings.

> Once people are comfortable with the idea of discarding the old bits, it is easy cleanup.  
> 
> #ifdef BINARY_DATA_FILE
>   <keep this portion>
> #else
>   <all this code gets tossed along with the ifdef's>
> #endif

But there is something strange about having that sort of code in the
first place.  If the BINARY_DATA_FILE code were properly integrated,
that second code segment would be empty.  The common functionality
should be factored out and removed from the conditional brackets
altogether.  Ideally there would be no #else sections to remove.


-- 
Ethan A Merritt       merritt@u.washington.edu
Biomolecular Structure Center
Mailstop 357742
University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195