Subject:
|
Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Mar 2003 06:43:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1990 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Travis Cobbs writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> > A valid suggestion - but are the braces necessary? Perhaps just the word META.
>
> The main reason I suggested the braces is that they make it basically
> impossible for the text to show up at the beginning of a standard comment
> line. In this case, they're probably unnecessary, since META isn't exactly
> a common word.
I understand the point, but yep - my line of thinking was what you just
said, META isn't that common.
> > Another suggestion Kevin kicked around with me (and I mentioned it to Steve,
> > I forget his rection though), was introducing a new line type specifically
> > for meta-commands. Thoughts on that?
>
> Well, I don't know about other programs, but LDView will throw them in the
> error log, but otherwise ignore them. It would be really easy for me to add
> support for the new type and not throw them in the error log, though.
Ok.
> One downside of a new line type is that I think we would need to wait for
> fairly wide-spread tool support of the new line type before we could
> reasonably make it "official".
Yeah.
Well, the suggestion is something new - which ultimately should be
considered by a standards body, and not decided upon here. Just another
suggestion to add to the pile.
Once a body is in place, making something official would be as simple as
putting it in a spec document, then it would be up to programmers to implement.
> > It's a bit more laborious to
> > type in
> >
> > 0 {FIELD} blah...
> >
> > than it is to type
> >
> > 0 FIELD blah...
>
> Once again, my rationale was to avoid having it show up in a comment that
> wasn't meant to be a field-specifier. While probably highly unlikely, I
> suppose FIELD could show up at the beginning of a standard comment line.
Sure.
> Come to think of it, the above {META} is somewhat unnecessary. If we're
> going to use braces, then the mere presense of the braces could indicate a
> meta-statement. i.e.:
>
> 0 {MPD-FILE} <filename>
> 0 {NOFILE}
> 0 {FIELD} Author: Travis Cobbs
True.
> If non-programmers think the braces make it too difficult to enter by hand,
> I'm comfortable with not having them, and just using 0 META to specify
> meta-commands.
I'm coming from the perspective of someone who's done a LOT of hand-editing
of files lately. Mostly just stitching together MPDs, but also adding a few
meta-commands here and there. I like the ease of 0 FILE for MPD files, and
would not like to have to add special characters when issuing other
meta-commands. One thing I really like about the format is how easy it is to
read and edit by hand. (read by hand? ...hey, it sounded good)
> > Nevertheless - I do think RIGHT NOW the focus should be on documenting what
> > we have, per Kevin's goals, and LATER we should worry about the future of
> > meta-commands. One thing at a time.
>
> This seems reasonable. However, news threads (including this branch of this
> one) can't really easily be put on hold.
You're right. Of course no one can put a kabosh on discussion - I suppose I
was just reiterating, decisions should be made by a standards body.
I've got some thoughts on the process to go about setting up the standards
body, but I'll wait and talk with Steve some on it, get more on the same
page with him, and post here. Sound reasonable? Does anyone else have any
suggestions on a good process to establish the body, and how to perpetuate it?
> --Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com)
How do you remove the halibut? ;-)
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
154 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
