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

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Colin Walters <address@hidden>

    > 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.

They don't solve things like file-type-specific diff and merge methods.


    > 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.

Exec is a kind of expensive function call with limited expressiveness.
Saying "exec" fails to say what is execed or how it interacts with the
state of the parent process.   I'm not sure you've said anything
specific enough to rebut.

-t