Chapter4 profile

Jeffery McLean jeffery at
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 
> again:

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...  :)
-- 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
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list