> 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.
I know. But if it will be clearer after that - it's worth it. > The question about dependency is that one: if rewriting a feature takes 10 > minutes, as it does for the printf stuff, It takes 10 minutes to read the mails about it. Implementing, debugging, documenting takes a lot longer. But I didn't want to be specific to the printf. > and adding a dep will take one hour to each porter, then rewriting > is easier. I don't think that it will take that long. More like the 10 minutes. > 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. True. But I guess we have more programmers than glob2 users on OS X 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. I haven't criticized that. It's a good thing to help with an implementation. > 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). The books would indeed be much better without it. I don't think strong leadership is needed. Instead I feel a lack of communication. Take me for example: I have worked for a month on the gradient calculation, but I haven't put it as a task in the bug tracker. Shame on me. -- Kai Antweiler _______________________________________________ glob2-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/glob2-devel
