On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 21:39 +0100, Jari Häkkinen wrote: > Why change the subject? James did not ask for deprecating Nasal, he > simply wanted to avoid multiple implementation of functionality. Less > error prone and if the available functionality does not fit ones need, > then fall back on Nasal (or C++). > > > Cheers, > > Jari
I change the subject line because I was changing the subject of the discussion from Autopilot tuning to Nasal vs. C++ coding because I disagree with the "general observation" James offered. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
