--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2007 03:42:15 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > The objection as, I understand it, is against having the common toy
> > (Axiom) move to duplicating functionalities (already provided by
> > external tools) and having to maintain the source code. It is a
> > waste of resource.
> >
>
> Yes, that is exactly my point.
Once the autoconf work becomes mainstream, this won't matter. The
build logic can presumably be set up such that if noweb is specified as
the literate programming tool, the other tools never need to be touched
by the build. In that scenario, as long as the behavior and structure
the point AFTER which the literate tool of choice is loaded are
consistent, maintaining other tools need concern only those who want to
use them. Bill, you and Gaby shouldn't ever have to worry about it -
no one would ask you to work on them. At most, we might ask that they
be listed as a configure option with enough logic to trigger them. I'm
hopeful that an entry of that sort would border on trivial.
Ideally, once these things are done they will require very little work
as long as a working Lisp environment is present, but again it would
matter ONLY to the people wanting to use it. The only point at which
it becomes a real issue is if the pamphlets go in a direction that
noweb can't follow, and I don't see that happening for a good long
while.
Cheers,
CY
____________________________________________________________________________________
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
