Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to")

[Colin Walters]

On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 13:02 -0700, Tom Lord wrote:

> As for =tagging-method: no, it's all wrong, in some sense.  First, the
> syntax is appalling (why aren't regexps "string constants" in some
> language, for example).  Second, it too could benefit from some
> turing-completeness as an alternative to, for example, .arch-inventory
> files.

You know, you originally said you were adding this extension language to
"tla".  If that was all you were doing, I wouldn't care so much.  But
what you're really talking about is embedding furth into "arch", which
is completely different.  Adding an entirely new programming language to
the arch protocol is a step that should be regarded with a huge amount
of skepticism, and so far most of your work appears to be in defining
furth rather than explaining the problems you're trying to solve.

Specifically for the above: Why would we need an *alternative* to .arch-
inventory files?  They solve an existing problem quite well.

The only other actual example of where you think Furth would be useful
in tla that I've gleaned from this thread is "project-specific" rules.
My answer to that is: "exec".  You have yet to rebut that.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part