On Sun Dec 16 10:31:58 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> James Keenan via RT wrote:
> > For no reason more profound than ease of editing, when I went to require
> > that each of 6 Parrot::Configure::Step methods be passed $conf
> > explicitly, I put that argument first.
> >
> > Which of course makes it look much like a Parrot::Configure method call.
> > And since the Parrot::Configure object constructed within
> > Parrot::Configure::Step is *the* singleton P::C object, that's not
> > surprising.
> >
> > So is there any compelling reason why these 6 methods should *not* be
> > moved into Parrot::Configure.pm? That would leave P::C::Step as a
> > location for utility subroutines which do not depend on the P::C object.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > kid51
> >
>
> am working on a patch to implement this
>
i see that as of r23980 (and beyond) you've moved these subs into a new
module Parrot::Configure::Compiler, converted them to methods, and made
the module a superclass of Parrot::Configure. this seems sane. carry on.
~jerry
