Yo Eric!
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 18:46:46 -0400
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> Gary E. Miller via devel :
> > I'd like to see full NTS implementation, not just interoperable.
>
> I don't know what that implies.
That means all the NTS features, not just enough to interoperate.
Off the top of my head
Ian Bruene via devel :
> Before any general push to Go happens there needs to be either a general
> familiarization with the more opinionated parts of the language, or a small
> part ported (like the python tools). Go has a way to knocking people
> sideways with its assumptions.
Agreed. I was ass
Gary E. Miller via devel :
> I'd like to see full NTS implementation, not just interoperable.
I don't know what that implies.
Is it something that would be easier after the Go port?
Is there actual demand fom it from Cisco or someone else willing to fund it?
--
http://www.catb.
Yo Eric!
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 18:28:50 -0400 (EDT)
"Eric S. Raymond via devel" wrote:
> Sanjeev has told me that from a user-centric point of view NTS is
> pretty much wrapped up - working, documented, interoperable.
I'd like to see full NTS implementation, not just interoperable.
RGDS
GARY
---
Yo Ian!
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:33:52 -0500
Ian Bruene via devel wrote:
> On 6/19/19 5:28 PM, Eric S. Raymond via devel wrote:
> > I'd like to see two different kinds of responses to this
> > provocation.
> >
> > 1. Are there blockers on the road to Go?
> >
> > 2. No, there's something else more
On 6/19/19 5:28 PM, Eric S. Raymond via devel wrote:
I'd like to see two different kinds of responses to this provocation.
1. Are there blockers on the road to Go?
2. No, there's something else more important to do first.
Before any general push to Go happens there needs to be either a gene
