BCS Wrote: > Reply to Paul, > > > Of course there's no reason why such a "snapshot" specification has to > > wait until the design is final. It can be based on any current > > snapshot and updated as changes occur. Again -- 100% backwards, but > > better, IMHO, than not done at all. > > > > This makes me think of how to maintain it. What would be cool is if each > spec item had an attached blob of code that checks and demonstrates the > assertion > made by the item. Then by switching to the latest and greatest and just > re-compiling > all the blobs you could get a list of items that need to be rewritten. What > would be very cool would be all of that in a wiki format that automatically > marks out of date sections. > >
Good idea. Now if we can get someone to bell the cat....
