[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: script.c -- job sizing...
From: |
Rob Browning |
Subject: |
Re: script.c -- job sizing... |
Date: |
20 May 2001 23:03:56 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 |
Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:
> Can't think of anything tricky, really. Given that we have the code
> in C already, what would be the advantage of rewriting it in Scheme?
I'd just seen a comment in the code suggesting that perhaps it should
be in scheme, and I suppose in general, I tend to feel that unless
things *need* to be in C, they should be in scheme, but if the
comment's irrelevant, and there's no good reason for script.c to be in
scheme, then I should probably leave it alone.
One minor argument in favor I could see is that it'd probably be
easier to fix/extend when needed. If we had -x for example, we could
probably implement most of the other options by capturing/executing
suitable continuations.
--
Rob Browning <address@hidden> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930