Hi Eliot
Thanks for the discussion. I will archive it and reread it.
Now I think that historically they missed several points I learned while
working on the Moose file format:
- having doit or expressions to be executed instead of a
declaration puts the burden on the tools.
- for example not having a class definition declaration and
just a do it forces the tools to parse and guess.
- relying on sequence is not good because if you file is cut then
this impacts several entities instead of having
just one impacted.
- I do not get why each entity in the chunk format is not
self contained because in any case no decent programmer
would use it to write code.
- Mixing annotation and essential information makes the format
really verbose.
- what we see is that if we want to exchange on mail about
code in several method in different classes, the chunk format is a pain
vs. Point >> signature
[ code here ]
- This is not by accident that in all the books we wrote we
use
Clas >> signature
code
This way is not good because we do not have the
warranty that code is not cut. Hence the previous one is better.
I will restart one of these days to work on an alternate file format for
textual editor.
I do not like the GNUSt syntax. Now indeed how to store metadata is a
good question.
Stef
