On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 05:50:41PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
: Akim Demaille wrote:
: The thing is, we have already done this. No real patch gets in.
: Nobody complains about the betas. And no one use them. Let's face
: it, the only means to have feedback on Autoconf is to release it and
:
Bob Proulx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many people do not like perl. But when you don't like python you
REALLY don't like python.
The same goes for some anti-perl-people. I don't believe there is
much difference in that. Unfortunately...
/bart
From: Bob Proulx [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:22:01 -0600
Python causes more polarization than any other language.
Clearly you haven't been in the trenches of past language wars. :-)
But if the principal maintainer prefers Perl, that settles the matter.
Well, I will disable the to-be-written chapter in the doc, I don't
have time to write it now, and I don't feel comfortable with using
Elf's material without his approval.
Let's flush all the documentation related patches, Lars' cleanups, and
target an actual release next week.
Alexandre, when
' cleanups, and
target an actual release next week.
Alexandre, when we release Autoconf, could you make tag and make a
branch for bug fixes on 2.50?
I think 2.51 will probably be released soon afterwards. Nonetheless,
I would like to introduce deep internal changes: introduce autom4te
Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think 2.51 will probably be released soon afterwards. Nonetheless, I
would like to introduce deep internal changes: introduce autom4te. I'd
like autom4te to be written in Perl, i.e., starting from 2.51, Autoconf
will require Perl, and the same Perl
Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hm, how come we face different realities? Is it something domain
specific? For instance, in my case, the last packages I can think about
that did not use Automake where GAWK and findutils (aside from the
compiling suites).
Well, just in a quick
On Apr 10, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like autom4te to be written in Perl, i.e., starting from 2.51,
Autoconf will require Perl, and the same Perl as Automake.
I hate Perl. Really. I mean it.
I'd much rather go for Python or some other readable scripting
language.
"Russ" == Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hm, how come we face different realities? Is it something domain
specific? For instance, in my case, the last packages I can think
about that did not use Automake where GAWK and findutils (aside
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre On Apr 10, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like autom4te to be written in Perl, i.e., starting from 2.51,
Autoconf will require Perl, and the same Perl as Automake.
Alexandre I hate Perl. Really. I mean it.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 10:58:37AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: Let's flush all the documentation related patches, Lars' cleanups, and
: target an actual release next week.
There are no showstoppers left?
: I think 2.51 will probably be released soon afterwards. Nonetheless,
: I would like
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:23:03PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: Honestly, I didn't even mention Python because I think it is too
: strong a required as opposed to Perl. But if Python is accepted, I'd
: be happy to learn it and use it for Autoconf.
:
: I don't know if Guile is a serious
"Lars" == Lars J Aas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Anyways, is "deep internal changes" really something for a +.1
Lars version increment? It sounds like a 3.0 rewrite to me - which
Lars we could of course fork off, but I think there's still a lot of
Lars living left to do for 2.* before its
Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre I hate Perl. Really. I mean it.
I hate it less than I used to, but it is still definitely not my
favorite. I like it much more than sh though (both Bourne sh, and
modern versions
Akim Demaille wrote:
Let's flush all the documentation related patches, Lars' cleanups, and
target an actual release next week.
I am in favor for letting autoconf-2.50 be preceeded by a at least 4
weeks long "code-freeze", "inevitable bug-fixes only" and "no new
"Russ" == Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ I hate to say this, but C *is* pretty portable, and you can
Russ probably assume that all maintainers who use autoconf have a C
Russ compiler available. I suppose that the sort of string
Russ manipulation that autoconf wants to do is pretty
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:47:08PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
: Akim Demaille wrote:
: Let's flush all the documentation related patches, Lars' cleanups, and
: target an actual release next week.
:
: I am in favor for letting autoconf-2.50 be preceeded by a at least 4
: weeks long "
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:48:39PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: "Russ" == Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: Russ I hate to say this, but C *is* pretty portable, and you can
: Russ probably assume that all maintainers who use autoconf have a C
: Russ compiler available. I suppose that
"Lars" == Lars J Aas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Another scripting language that hasn't been mentioned is Tcl.
I think I did mention the speed issue at some point ;)
No really, I think Perl is the most serious candidate.
Akim Demaille wrote:
"Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ralf Akim Demaille wrote:
Let's flush all the documentation related patches, Lars' cleanups,
and target an actual release next week.
Ralf I am in favor for letting autoconf-2.50 be preceeded by a at
Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[About changing language for a future Autoconf rewrite]
No really, I think Perl is the most serious candidate.
Check out this snippet from Automake's TODO file:
rewrite in guile (RMS request)
at the same time, consider adding a GUI
Morten Eriksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(It seems a bit silly to go from sh to Perl with Autoconf if Automake is
planned to be rewritten from Perl to Guile..) :-}
I personally wouldn't mind Guile, if for no other reason than it would
give me a good excuse to learn Scheme. But it definitely
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 02:23:03PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: So? Let's give a try to Python? Move to Perl 5.5? Other?
I suddenly got the urge to do some ranting :-}
The situation today is that perl has the upper hand and Guile is more or
less just another embeddable scheme interpreter.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 03:19:40PM +0200, Morten Eriksen wrote:
Check out this snippet from Automake's TODO file:
rewrite in guile (RMS request)
Is this on Automake's TODO list for technical reasons or
political ones? (So call me a cynic, but "RMS request" is pretty
suggestive :-)
"Eric" == Eric Siegerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
rewrite in guile (RMS request)
Eric Is this on Automake's TODO list for technical reasons or
Eric political ones? (So call me a cynic, but "RMS request" is
Eric pretty suggestive :-)
Political. Guile is the Official GNU scripting language.
Akim Demaille wrote:
"Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ralf Akim Demaille wrote:
Let's flush all the documentation related patches, Lars' cleanups,
and target an actual release next week.
Ralf I am in favor for letting autoconf-2.50 be preceeded by a at
So? Let's give a try to Python? Move to Perl 5.5? Other?
Python has a core of loyal followers, just like perl and others, but
it also has a core deficiency of using white space for control which
creates the opposite effect of extreme dislike from others. Python
causes more polarization than
27 matches
Mail list logo
