Modularity

[David Relson]

At 10:53 AM 1/13/03, Jake Di Toro wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Matthias Andree wrote:
>
> > Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues <anr at estadao.com.br> writes:
> >
> > > Right now, bogofilter has switches that don't mean anything when used
> > > together and one switch that can have different semantical
> > > values. Again, it is no coincidence.
> >
> > This is indeed a somewhat compelling argument.
> >
> > David, how about if we go the separation way even if it means installing
> > two executables of about the same size and leaving bogofilter as wrapper
> > that uses bogoclass or bogolexer? Would that be feasible? It'd get us
> > rid of some command line switch validation code.
>
>Perhaps instead of seperating into distinct excutables, test on ARGV[0]
>for the names and only allow parameters based on the name.  fairly
>standard way to have one program do several things.  This will prevent
>having bloat from code being duplicated between programs, and avoid having
>a library for something the should be fairly simple.
>
>--
>Till Later,
>Jake

Jake,

Indeed, a better answer to the question.  However, I'm still waiting for 
evidence that changes would be useful.

David