On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 11:15 -0500, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Jan 18, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Peter Clifton wrote: > > Since you (nor anyone else) has come up with any use-case or reason as > > to why you want / need executable configs (as a user), I think you > > should leave the implementation details up to those who would be doing > > it. I really believe this is easier to implement than you're making > > out. > > Just to be clear here (as I hadn't followed much of this thread), > we're only talking about removing executable configs, not removing > scheme-scriptability, is that correct?
Exactly. The config syntax wouldn't even be changing.. just a more formal specification that "don't expect this file to be _executed_ by the scheme interpreter. -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
