a separate configuration language
Richard Kelsey
(23 Feb 1999 01:31 UTC)
|
Re: a separate configuration language
sperber@xxxxxx
(26 Feb 1999 14:17 UTC)
|
Re: a separate configuration language
Richard Kelsey
(26 Feb 1999 16:37 UTC)
|
Re: a separate configuration language
sperber@xxxxxx
(26 Feb 1999 16:52 UTC)
|
Re: a separate configuration language
Richard Kelsey
(26 Feb 1999 20:00 UTC)
|
Re: a separate configuration language
sperber@xxxxxx
(28 Feb 1999 09:18 UTC)
|
Re: a separate configuration language
sperber@xxxxxx
(01 Mar 1999 15:47 UTC)
|
Re: a separate configuration language Lars Thomas Hansen (01 Mar 1999 16:03 UTC)
|
Re: a separate configuration language Lars Thomas Hansen 01 Mar 1999 16:03 UTC
> To demonstrate the utility of the conditional construct, consider the > following example: This does not seem like a very compelling example, because it is so abstract. So far, it seems that this proposal is sacrificing the principle of least surprise to something of undemonstrated utility. I think the proposal would be more interesting if you could exhibit either a couple of very compelling concrete example or at least a half-dozen moderately interesting examples, where the utility of letting the implementation choose is "obvious" and "significant". In each case it should be plausible that the implementation can reasonably be expected to be able to make the right choice. --lars