Thorsten Behrens wrote: >> Given that the syntax of the "build task description language" should >> be simple (because, if one needs it to be complex, one is likely Doing >> It Wrong(tm)) I wonder, if something that can be processed by the >> POSIX-shell or the C-Preprocessor would not be possible too(*). >> Actually, I am rather confident that would be possible. >> > Likely. There are two reasons I decided against using those: > * ugliness (I have yet to see the cpp macro program that does not > hurt my eyes) > * too much expressiveness (you'll get full turing completeness > easily, when you process stuff with the shell. I explicitely > wanted to keep things declarative, and prohibit those small local > if-then-else workarounds)
"Ugliness" is in the eye of the beholder, but simple declarations instead of more or less complex expressions are indeed valuable. Let's see what we can do in the way Björn suggested. Regards, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "nospamfor...@gmx.de". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tools.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tools.openoffice.org
