On 26 August 2012 10:22, Michael Haberler <mai...@mah.priv.at> wrote:
> after reading your patch I found not a single line which warrants the > modification of the interpreter at the C level. The whole thing can be done > in an O-word procedure, maybe a bit of Python glue, as a remapped code, which > is in master, and in a stable fashion for the better part of this year. And > it is exactly the use case for which I developed the remapping extension in > the first place. Would that be an argument for removing all other canned cycles from the Interpreter and putting them in O-subs? That was meant as a "reductio ad absurdum", but now I am not so sure that that wouldn't actually be a good idea. It would allow users/integrators to tweak canned cycles to suit very easily. -- atp If you can't fix it, you don't own it. http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
