At 11:00 28/2/01 +1100, Conor MacNeill wrote: >From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Thats not part of UI. > >I'd say you are splitting hairs. The build file syntax is strongly part of >the user interface.
Not even close. Take another few different build file formats. Whatever VisualC uses (is it nmake?) - never seen the syntax - used to use it everyday. Probably close to 90% of the make files I use - I don't look at etc. UI has to do what the users of the system see - developers of it (ie make file authours) see a different aspect. >But anyway, lets put that aside. My point is that the >argument which states that things should be done the way they have always >been done or the way others do them is not very compelling to me. It is the >sort of argument that led C++ to use name mangling to fit the old way of >linking. It is not X has always been done this way thus we should do it. The arguement is "Changing an accepted standard breaks a lot of environments with little or no advantage". Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
