On 2014/03/18 01:01:10, dfc wrote:
> Some minor comments.
> A larger meta comment, a lot of this change is noise due to charm.URL
being
> treated as a pointer where it is actually a value.
> If all the references to *charm.URL were replaced with charm.URL the
amount of
> defensive coding in this change, and elsewhere would be reduced.
I agree that referencing charm.URL as a value type would be ideal. This
morning I explored what it would take. I really don't feel comfortable
landing such a refactoring in this specific proposal -- much more of the
codebase would be affected.
On 2014/03/18 01:01:10, dfc wrote:
> Some minor comments.
> A larger meta comment, a lot of this change is noise due to charm.URL
being
> treated as a pointer where it is actually a value.
> If all the references to *charm.URL were replaced with charm.URL the
amount of
> defensive coding in this change, and elsewhere would be reduced.
I agree that referencing charm.URL as a value type would be ideal. This
morning I explored what it would take. I really don't feel comfortable
landing such a refactoring in this specific proposal -- much more of the
codebase would be affected.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/76860044/