Timeline for Reviewing generated code
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12, 2015 at 0:58 | comment | added | RubberDuck | Your last point in the comments is a good one. I'm just uncomfortable reviewing output. The output should be highly specified, right? Wouldn't reviewing generated code really either be a spec review or some kind of strange design review? Idk. I need to chew on this one. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 21:00 | comment | added | Jeroen Vannevel | And I don't mind at all, just don't expect a review from it. There are many different kinds of code generation and I'd rather not place any restrictions instead of white- or blacklisting specific ones. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 20:51 | comment | added | nhgrif | I'm going to start wall-of-coding CR questions with the XML that my interface builder creates. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 18:57 | comment | added | Jeroen Vannevel | Sort of. It's the same as any other library: you use the API available. There is no inherent need to know the inner workings of the generator itself. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 18:54 | comment | added | Malachi | in order to review the input to get the output we still need the inner workings so we know what is best for input to get the output we desire. right? | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 18:03 | history | answered | Jeroen Vannevel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |