Re: saving AC development strength

[Bruce Korb]

Akim Demaille wrote:
> 
> | > | 1.  changequote to something certain to not be confused (probably would
> | > |     have been a really good idea way back when, but likely not now)
> 
> No, it has always been a bad idea.  It's just that noone was aware how
> bad it was.  You're comparing a
> 
> ~/src/ace % wc -l [[...]]
>    5589 total
> 
> with a
> 
> ~/src/ace % wc -l [[...]]
>   14024 total
> 
> So yes, the problem is more visible now.

???  Are you arguing this on the basis of *SPACE*???
Where disk space now sells for US$ 0.000000002 per byte
and DRAM goes for US$ 0.0000002 per byte.  Please tell me
I am misunderstanding you.  Comprehensibility and usability
are vastly more important than that!  Even if the issue
is added processing time, I cannot see it outweighing
ease of use.

> | Here's an example.  Please note that *only* user supplied
> | text has the quadrigraph substitutions done.
> 
> Then the user cannot pass text to expand to your tool.

It is true that a user of this scheme cannot use AC_* functions
that require quoted arguments inside of their script fragments.
The intent is to hand-hold people through the process of constructing
simple macros.  Nested autoconf macros, perforce, are deemed
out of scope  :-).  I don't expect either you nor most people
reading this list to jump on form-generated autoconf macros.
My expectation is that I am creating something that will make
it easy for the "masses" (?! ;) to create simple macros.

> Go for [blind push & pop].  You *never* know if you're right or not.
> People
> don't seem to understand how bad static vs dynamic is.  Study this:

Given the usage constraints, I'm not sure I understand how
it applies.  On the other hand, somebody may get ambitious
and figure out how to do more complex stuff, ...

> Never think you can optimize.  You just can't.

'K

Thanks!
        Bruce

-- 

Bruce Korb <first initial + last name at gnu dot org>
AG URL: http://autogen.sourceforge.net