Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit

[Colin Walters]

On Sun, 2003-10-19 at 00:55, Tom Lord wrote:
>     > From: Colin Walters <address@hidden>
> 
>     > Here's a good one, from Message-Id: <address@hidden>
> 
>     > [...]
>     > But it's not
>     > an argument for embedding a language inside tla.  
> 
> As far as I am aware, nobody is arguing to do so.

Ok.  I am very relieved then.  That was my major point of concern. 
Thank you for clarifying this.

> You can equally well, better even (which is my point) layer your
> favorite programming langauge on top of the tla program rather than
> the libarch api.
>
> I've previously mentioned may reasons why it is better to layer on tla
> rather than libarch -- is it really necessary to repeat them?

If this is all we're debating, then good.  Because it doesn't
particularly matter whether you think wrapper libraries should fork/exec
tla or be in the same process.  Until libarch is cleaned up, fork/exec
is the only option.  But eventually someone will do the work of
converting libarch to cleanly pass back errors and such, and this will
enable the second approach, which I know to be much easier and better.
But implementing it wouldn't hurt the first approach at all (and would
actually improve the code, thus making things more reliable overall).
So really we have nothing to argue about.

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