|
From: | Robert Anderson |
Subject: | Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Features command for arch |
Date: | Fri, 03 Sep 2004 07:09:32 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 |
Matthieu Moy wrote:
No. That can go in the configure process itself (along with any such scheme of anyone's choosing)."Robert Anderson" <address@hidden> writes:is being used from last time 'configure' was run. If you're going to do something really crazy like use a different tla every time you run the front end, the front-end could hash the executables to an array of configurations.That means each front-end has to implement a persistant table (hash -> features) or at least a persistant checksum.
Look, the configure information has to be somewhere. It seems pretty unconvincing to complain about "another config file" when the alternative is some data structure in tla.One more config file, one more dependancy on md5sum, ...
emacs is fundamentally different in that it primarily interacts with a display. tla primarily interacts with the shell and the file system. _Big_ difference in how well it interacts with a configureDeveloping xtla, we currently face this kind of problems, not for tla, but for the differences between Emacs versions. And believe me, the ability to "introspect" your own features in an extension language (featurep, fboundp in the case of Emacs lisp) is _much_ easier to implement than a configure script !
script.
Well, of course. That offloads the burden on somebody else. I just don't think that's where theOne day, we'll have to manage the different versions of tla, and I'd clearly prefer testing tla's features with a standard way than typing a new testcase myself in a configure script to get the answer.
burden belongs. Bob
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |