Re: VMS support

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

  > > I say go ahead and zonk the VMS support.  If someone funds another
  > > port (by me or whoever), previous source can always be re-dredged
  > > and previous "expertise" can always be re-fudged. :-D
  > 
  > OK, so we should get rid of the VMS code in one clean commit with a CVS
  > tag before and another after.  I think it's important for this commit to
  > be as clean as possible (i.e. it really removes all the VMS related
  > code and text), so that there won't be some future changes that remove
  > a bit more of the VMS support: this way the CVS tags will faithfully
  > include all the relevant code (and text).

IMO doing it this way is too high of a burden and hence not very
feasible.  It pretty much forces this to be a one person job instead of
allowing it to be distributed.  
There are 397 references just to the VMS string just in the C code +
docs.  And there are probably many things that are only valid for VMS,
but are not explicitly mentioning the VMS string.

  > I guess we should do the same for the Carbon port since it also seems
  > that nobody is interested in updating&maintaining it.

Is this a go ahead?