This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Guile docstrings---should Guile code be ANSI C compatible?
- To: "Greg J. Badros" <gjb at cs dot washington dot edu>
- Subject: Re: Guile docstrings---should Guile code be ANSI C compatible?
- From: Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj at mdj dot nada dot kth dot se>
- Date: 15 Jan 2000 03:10:14 +0100
- Cc: Mikael Djurfeldt <djurfeldt at nada dot kth dot se>, Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow at alum dot mit dot edu>, guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Cc: djurfeldt at nada dot kth dot se
- References: <E129GC4-0004oo-00@mdj.nada.kth.se> <qrriu0wxj92.fsf@clavicle.cs.washington.edu> <xy7iu0wqehx.fsf@mdj.nada.kth.se>
Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se> writes:
> I prefer the Emacs solution before the script solution, though,
> because of the above reason and because it is conceptually simpler.
"And what the hell does he mean with "conceptually simpler"?" :)
I mean that it seems more likely to break. (What if the stupid SP2
environment has a slightly broken perl? What if there are bugs in the
perlscript? (Note that you'll always see the result with the Emacs
solution.) When am I going to run the script? etc etc)