On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:58:41AM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 02:37:22PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 08:48:48PM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 08:35:57AM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
Committed, except 00 and 05.
00: The stash buffer may hold a script, in that case parse_stash is not as clear as parse_entities.
Would a better name make the change acceptable? For instance, Html_parse_stash_entries() ?
Html_parse_stash_entities() ?
Why is it better than the traditional a_Html_parse_entities()?
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I read you as saying that the new function a_Html_parse_stash() was not very well named, and I meant to suggest a_Html_parse_stash_entities() as an improvement. If you were saying that the refactoring itself is confusing then I misread you.
I find the generic a_Html_parse_entities() OK. -- Cheers Jorge.-