Re: [Texmacs-dev] Patches applied for next version

[David Allouche]

On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 10:54:36AM +0100, Joris van der Hoeven wrote:
> 
> I applied all patches from 663 to 702 in the next version
> with the following exceptions:

Great.
 
> 682: this should first be tested more thoroughly with
>      several versions of Guile.

I hope you will soon be doing so.

> 685: rejected; these comments are helpful and do not indicate a bug.
>      I do not like the fix and software should be backward compatible.

That is what I expected.

Compilers should not be indefinitely backward compatible with
infantile disorders of C++ now that the language is stable.

> 687: rejected; one might rather add a title environment to
>      the generic style.

That may be nice too. But in my experience, 90% of the time the first
thing the user does when creating a new document is setting the
document style to article...

I guess you have a different experience, so I am interested in all
input on that matter.

Also can you explain what is the rationale behind using "generic" by
default instead of a more generally useful style. I do not think
"generic" is what can be called a "reasonable default".

> 688: rejected; users want to see the complete commands being executed.
>      We can live with a bit of clutter.

I think users really do not care about the compilation messages...

And I believe simplifying this message may cause the users to provide more
complete build logs when reporting problems. Did you notice a
difference in the quality of submitted build logs since nogencc was
merged?

> I also think that 595 is obsolete and that 610 was already applied before.
> Please remove such items, so that I do not have to look at things several
> times.

About one week ago, I added comments to these patches to explain why
they are still open.

> I also hope that removing -I- in 683 will work for all versions
> of Guile and g++. This should also be tested more thoroughly.

Testing compilation one numerous platforms is incredibly tedious and
time consuming. So maybe we may accept a small probability of breaking
a minor platform when fixing a problem on another platform.

For this specific change, as far as I recall, the "-I-" flag was
introduced by nogencc, so not using it is unlikely to cause any
problem. And considering how anal the build system is about include
paths, I would be surprised to see many (if any) header file name
conflicts arise.

-- 
David Allouche         | GNU TeXmacs -- Writing is a pleasure
Free software engineer |    http://www.texmacs.org
   http://ddaa.net     |    http://alqua.com/tmresources
   address@hidden  |    address@hidden
TeXmacs is NOT a LaTeX front-end and is unrelated to emacs.