Re: Modularizing cons

[Steven Knight]

> > Agreed, with one exception: scanning for includes doesn't belong with
> > the build tool, it belongs in a separate scanner object that's tied to
> > the type of file being scanned.
>
> Maybe, maybe not.
> *Where* to look for included files may be tool-specific.

Good point.  Even if they're associated with a specific tool/builder,
though, I'd still think scanners should be their own objects, so that
in the usual case different tools can share common scanners.  I'd hate
to force every separate builder object for every C compiler tool chain
to write their own scanner if they don't deviate from common/standard
practice.

> > Does all of this need to
> > maintain backwards compatibility with the current Cons, or are people
> > open to a *complete* rework for a hypothetical Cons 3.0, and losing
> > backwards compatibility?
>
> My opinion:
>
> If you think it makes it easier to develop, then just ignore backwards
> compatibility.
>
> It's my feeling that once the work is done to modularize it, it will
> actually be easy to tweak it afterwards to regain backwards compatibility.

That makes sense.  It's doubtless easier to take something that works
and make it faster/compatible, than to try to take something that's
compatible and make it work right... :-)

        --SK