[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (techy) Code specs?
- To: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: (techy) Code specs?
- From: Mark-Jason Dominus <mjd@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 19:12:59 -0500
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:36:21 +1100." <19981116103621.E6106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
> I don't see there's any "up to date" stuff going to happen though.
Oh, that's good. Because I didn't see how the information gained was
going to be of any benefit. :)
But seriously: I don't understand why it's imoprtant to be able to
see at a glance whether the function is `ours' or not.
Also seriously, there must be some cost, because I have it on good
>#> Sometimes the internal functions are called with an & and
>#> sometimes without.
If that's true, it will have to be fixed.
> Curses isn't suddenly going to be imported, and vice versa, is it?
Well, I don't know.
> So the only time it takes energy is when you write stuff, and at
> that point you probably know.
Or at that point you have to remember. But if you can remember while
you're writing, why can't you remember while you're reading?
> *thinks about it*
> I'm undecided.
Well, I think that at this point I've said pretty much everything
I have to say on the subject, so whatever you decide, I'll feel OK
No not quite, I just thought of something else: If the real issue is
that you need the & form for syntax highlighting, and you need the
syntax highlighting, then wouldn't it be best to use the & form for
*all* function calls?
OK, now I'm really done.