> I remember Steph saying that: rewriting glob2 core code isn't worth > the effort. On the other hand the effort to rewrite new code is > reasonable !?! I don't get it.
I've said this, but our current cleaning of unit allocation and unit state machine turns indeed in a rewrite. Problem is that it takes long time. The question about dependency is that one: if rewriting a feature takes 10 minutes, as it does for the printf stuff, and adding a dep will take one hour to each porter, then rewriting is easier. If we want to add 20 of those features, than dependency is better. Furthermore, the more dependency the less people compile glob2 easily, especially on OS X (where we do not have any package right now) and win32. Now for the precise issue of printf, at the end, I do not care either to use boost or to use a small rewrite. I just suggested how it could be rewritten to address some complaints about dependencies. Perhaps some of you will complain about the lack of strong leadership (as my student do, it's frightening how much they ask to be coerced into working, very sad), but I think that everyone should find its own path in the art of computer programming (and, as speaking about it, this stupid assembler of 60ies Knuth is using in his books is very unfriendly). Steph _______________________________________________ glob2-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/glob2-devel
