> Mmmm, I have trouble feeling strongly towards either. (A) has > been tested and known to work. If you could split them up > using (B) and pass them to (A), you'd have less of a chance > to break things. (A) would remain simpler logic, and (B) > would be called (hopefully again as a library function) only > in systems needed. If it's possible, I'd rather we broke up > problems into smaller solutions. > > But you may just implement (A) and see that the logic is not > all that more complex. I don't know. > > Another guess I'm casually making is that if we implement (A) > and a comment is not parseable, we may have trouble > continuing the parsing for the remaining comments (and report > more verbose error messages). While with (B) we might retain > that verbosity. > > I don't know. Play with either ?
Went for option (B) in the end, much easier and safer! _______________________________________________ scmbug-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mkgnu.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scmbug-users
