Re: Request for comments: CONS specification

[H. S. Teoh]

On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 03:39:10AM +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
[snip]
> > What I'm proposing is to migrate qs into the new cons as the core
> > build engine.
> 
> I'm not sure if qs should be the core of the new Cons. I want to design
> entirely from scratch a new Cons, and then build the code in respect to
> the specification. The latter will include a documented API to link an
> interface to the core system. If Qs could be modified to expose this
> API, or if a Cons-API front-end could be written for Qs, it could at
> least be an alternate core.
[snip]

I'd rather not have to rewrite everything from scratch if Qs's license
allows us to take the code and modify it so that it meets our spec. If we
can reuse existing code, there's no need to reinvent the wheel.


T

-- 
Sneak preview: actually it really sucks, but we're baiting you so that you'll
pay for it anyway and we can cover our losses. And perhaps also convince you
that the Emperor really is wearing invisible clothes.

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature