On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 02:48:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: > > These two things aren't demanded by Policy AFAICT, it just so happens that > > they're possible to be done. Had we used perl or shell as rules file > > previously, there would be similar things that would be made nonstandard by > > allowing e.g. makefiles. > > Exactly, and both cases would be bad. There's absolutely no good reason to > remove the options that the current choice gives us.
There's absolutely no good reason not to add the option that other choices would give us. > This is a loss of flexibility solely for the sake of change. This is evil. As if make was the only flexible choice. > > It's basically a choice between conservatively sticking to the standard, and > > allowing some innovation within the standard. > > Enforcing make allows innovation. Dropping that requirement disallows a > large number of possible innovations. Don't do it. Not enforcing make allows innoviation. Having that requirement disallows a large number of possible innovations. Do it. Don't you see the circularity in this? :) -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
