On Jan 15, 2010, at 11:48 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : PITA != hard. If we're not willing to put in the effort to fix > : something, I don't think we should call it hard to do. We should > : call it like it is: non-trivial, involved or significant. Heck, > : we can even call it a major undertaking. But hard? No, I don't > : think it's hard at all. > > Agreed. But having retrofitted grammars in the past, coupled with the > fact that config doesn't create a proper parse tree means we'd be > rewriting huge portions of config, almost a complete rewrite from > scratch, I'd say, would be necessary. And then you've sunk a huge > amount of time into solving a tiny problem. Rewriting config should > produce more benefits than just this one problem. That's why I called > it hard.
Yes. I do believe that it's a "big job" and it's fair to ask whether it's worth. > : How does this address the "I don't want everything, I just want > : my CVS keyword" example? *snip* > I don't understand the "I just want my CVS keywords expanded" > example. The inspiration came from Peter Jeremy's email in this thread. -- Marcel Moolenaar xcl...@mac.com _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
