Derick Eddington <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 00:11 +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote: > >> On the other hand, I have some uses of `include' in >> my own libraries; using (ported private include) from e.g. spells would >> feel kind of dirty. I could imagine getting rid of `include' in spells, >> but there might be people who prefer this style of separating the code >> and the library metadata. > > I wouldn't do that. Keep using your own include for your own stuff. I > plan to do that. I like that our personal collections explore > differences. > >> Thus IMHO, it there would be merit in >> providing such a basic tool as `include' in a public package, separate >> from the `ported' collection of packages. > > There is merit in consolidated functionality, but as our different > include libraries show, as well as more fundamental differences such as > locating the files in some other way (e.g. relative to the including > file, instead of searching the library search path), there's different > ways to do it, and I don't want to take on The One Include Library to > Rule Them All and Make Everyone Happy. > [...]
OK, I'm convinced now :-). Rotty, heading towards bed -- Andreas Rottmann -- <http://rotty.yi.org/>
