On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 15:26 -0700, David Brownell wrote: > On Wednesday 11 November 2009, Zach Welch wrote: > > Please restate this in the form of a problem that needs solving. > > You have stated a solution. What was the original problem? > > Are there other possible solutions? How does this solve it better than > > other alternatives? > > And what happened to that more standard Tcl model I mentioned a > while back ... a series of interpreters, with the current target > object at the front of the series, and more global stuff back at > the end? > > I'm quite sure that was one of the ways folk did objects in Tcl > back a few years. Interpreters in Tcl are supposed to be light > weight scopes. Currently we make them be heavy-weight, and that > creates some impedence mismatches... > > > > The fact that you sometimes don't get a response could mean that nobody > > understood what you were talking about. If you make such proposals by > > posting a patch series, the conversation should be more productive. :) > > On the other hand ... for big things, it's best to avoid > turning fuzzy ideas into C. There's a risk of tha fuzziness > getting committed, and then getting hard to remove.
Ah, but with git, it can be committed! Refrain from pushing, though. My point is that concepts which cannot be explained fully must be turned into code. If you fail at that (i.e. the code sucks horribly), then it probably did not deserve to be considered in the first place. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
