I spend a lot of effort trying to follow the style guide.  And I generally
respond quickly to PR comments of things I missed and fix them.  I think it
would be inappropriate (and frustrating to me) to enforce the style guide -
except when someone wants to break it.  I think we should follow the style
guide or choose another one.


On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Anthony Scopatz
<notifications@github.com>wrote:

> In src/Core/context.cc:
>
> > +};
> > +
> > +void Context::RegisterProto(std::string name, Prototype* p) {
> > +  protos_[name] = p;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void Context::RegisterRecipe(std::string name, Composition::Ptr c) {
> > +  recipes_[name] = c;
> > +};
> > +
> > +Composition::Ptr Context::GetRecipe(std::string name) {
> > +  if (recipes_.count(name) == 0) {
> > +    throw KeyError("Invalid recipe name " + name);
> > +  }
> > +  return recipes_[name];
> > +};
>
>  You mention iteration, but I don't think we should cater to agents that
> aren't sure of exact recipes they are looking for.
>
> I disagree. This is where all of the interesting problems are. I'd
> actually like to see us move completely away from the concept of recipes.
> Or at least recipes as predetermined things.
>
> I am not universally against public members.
>
> I am the inverse. I am not universally against private members =).
>
> In any event, I think we have gotten pretty far off of the beaten track
> here. What do you think that we should do to get back on? Arguably this PR
> isn't about assessor / mutators nor about the relative merits of recipes.
> What do you think that we should do to make us both happy?
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/cyclus/cyclus/pull/568/files#r6211886>
> .
>