jeffery at meowpawjects.com
Sat Oct 7 18:03:21 PDT 2000
On Sat, 07 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> > > Yeah, you're right. Version 1 of the standard shouldn't include loops. If
> > > we see the need later, we can always add them in. Maybe sometime we'll
> > > all jump up from our chairs, screaming: "WE NEED LOOPS!!!"
> > Right, Anyone else have anything to add/say? now would be the time...
> > (well give it a few days, i know Gerard loves his WE :)
> I think loops need to be supported yes. Just look at the Simon's example
My view... knowing that changing things around is unavoidable
but it would be nice if we could at least make enough provisions
to avoid having to make changes to often... :)
(But not go so far as trying to outguess every need)
[Not quite an answer to the loop question but.. food for thought maybe]
To me the questions to ask should allways be
1. Is it likely someone will need it
2. Will it be easy to implement
better reverse those... 2 should be the first priority...
If it's not easy to implement then it should wait for a time when we know
EXACTLY how it will be used... If it's used at all...
Maybe at that time we can come up with a better solution...
(It's easyer to make an answer if you know the question)
My views... :)
http://www.meowpawjects.com/ Doing the impossible daily
Come see my projects and download my code. Open source all the way....
Unsubscribe: send email to alfs-profile-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message
More information about the alfs-discuss