Re: replace DIGIT token class with UNSIGNED (issue 4311041)

[Carl Sorensen]

On 9/11/11 7:09 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:

> address@hidden writes:
> 
>> LGTM.
>> 
>> This was a clever way to solve things.  Thanks, David!
> 
> Actually, it took me considerable time to come up with a solution that
> is boring rather than clever.

That is why I thought it was clever.  In my usage I distinguish between
"clever" and "tricky", although perhaps I shouldn't.

"Tricky" applications find clever ways to get around the intended behavior
in order to establish some desired functionality.

"Clever" applications find ways to establish the desired functionality
through straightforward application of the intended behavior.
> 
> Most of my recent API additions were made in order to allow for more
> boring programs.  I've gotten burnout in the TeX/LaTeX world from having
> to be clever about almost anything (if you find \romannumeral in TeX
> code written in the last decade, chances are that it can be traced to
> one of several undesigned-for applications of this TeX primitive
> established by me

I appreciate your desires to make things boring (or I'd say,
straightforward).  And I can see that it's often harder to fix the root
cause than to throw some special-case patch on things.

> 
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/4311041/
> 
> I am reasonably confident that this is boring enough to not cause
> problems.

Me, too.

Thanks,

Carl