On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 08:19:07AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >On Fri, 14 May 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 11:18:40PM -0400, Daniel Reed wrote: >> >On 2004-05-13T23:22+0100, Max Bowsher wrote: >> >) Gerrit P. Haase wrote: >> >) > Hallo, >> >) > >> >) > want to maintain re2c: http://re2c.org/ >> >) > >> >) > # re2c setup.hint >> >) > @ re2c >> >) No need for the above 2 lines. >> > >> >Actually, starting sometime soon the "@ " line may indeed be needed. >> >> ACK! No, please. I've been actively advocating not to do this for some >> time. I can't imagine why this would not be obvious from context. It is >> always better to let the computer do the work for you and just dropping >> a setup.hint in an appropriately named directory is guaranteed to be >> less error prone than putting a name in a setup.hint file that is the >> same name as a directory. >> >> I have actually been removing these redundant lines whenever I find them >> in a setup.hint. > >Actually, I see this as a different point. IMO, Dan says that the '@ ' >line will be needed in the *inline* copy of setup.hint that's included >in the ITP messages. The actual setup.hint (if there's a link to it) >doesn't have to (and, I agree, should not) include it. Also, the '@ ' >line can be easily filtered out by the automatic submission program, so >that the resulting setup.hint in the package directory won't have it.
Sorry, but I don't see that either. It's still error prone. If we are automating things then there should be a pull-down or something which allows you to select a package name from a list rather than invent one by adding the name after a '@'. cgf
