On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 09:32 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > This only happens during XML parsing, so the Package protocol is > > unchanged. You can short-circuit it with an explicit <file> or > > <built-file> or <other future allFiles-integrated tag>. The idea is to > > simplify description and eliminate common errors for the most common > > case, in which you want a <file> for each <filein>. > > I'm not sure actually of the patch, though I see what you want to achieve. > > The best thing would be to add fileins automatically to either <file> or > <built-file> using something like > > <filein dist="yes|no">
The extra verbosity would greatly reduce the benefit of implying anything versus just specifying <built-file> explicitly, e.g.: <filein dist="no">something.st</filein> v <filein>something.st</filein> <built-file>something.st</built-file> As built-file is much rarer and is likely to remain so, requiring explicit specification is not too much of a burden, and is anyway more self-documenting. In addition, this flag would close off other types of packaged files. I am not sure what those would be, but dare not limit the domain to that of my imagination at this late hour. :) -- ;;; Stephen Compall ** http://scompall.nocandysw.com/blog ** ;;; acolyte of the indirect effect
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ help-smalltalk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk
