Hi Jerry, I'm just curious, I don't mean to criticize your ideas. Just, give some "why"s for the "should"s.
On 11/29/05, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the parrot directory structure is large and a bit disorganized. > let me give you some examples: > * build_tools/, util/, and tools/*/ each contain utility perl > scripts. these should be grouped together under tools/, which > already contains subdirectories Why must all perl scripts be grouped under one directory? > * there are multiple dirs containing C source code (charset, > classes, io, etc.) these should be grouped together under src/ Why must all C files be grouped under one directory? > * the editor/ directory contains files for text editors and has > a generated makefile. there is no reason for this to be a make > target. a perl script should be created to replace makefile, > and the dir moved with the other tool & utility scripts. Why can't we use make for this? Make handles modification times and rebuilds on demand based on dependencies. imc.vim (and a few others IIRC) are built from dependencies, and if the dependencies haven't been changed, they don't need to be rebuilt. That sounds like make's job to me. Luke
