Peter Memishian wrote:
> I agree with you on that ON is not wedded to warlock, IMHO we should > focus on improving warlock to refine its interfaces and not on > converging warlock to lock_lint or something. I still object to this. Unless there is actually a different intended purpose for the two tools, having warlock and lock_lint diverge further will just create confusion and limit our return on investment (e.g., since customers of lock_lint will not benefit from warlock enhancements). If warlock is considered the better codebase to evolve, then please evolve it to subsume lock_lint (which could then be EOL'd with a reasonable transition plan to warlock) -- but please don't leave lock_lint adrift.
I agree with you. If we want to improve warlock, the first thing would be to make it can do what lock_lint is able to. And I don't think this would be very difficult. All I know is that lock_lint changed warlock syntax a little. Maybe there are other changes I don't know. It's only my personal idea. I think Alexander would provide a better answer since I am not the developer of either tool. _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list [email protected]
