Subject: Re: [Fwd: a proposal for next major (5.x)]
To: Garrett D'Amore <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 09/07/2006 15:02:45
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 02:21:49PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > MI hacks for any platform should preferably not exist, but that's=20
> > another issue. And if you think grep etc. takes too long time to
> > execute I would say that it is a cheap prize to pay to get this support.
Well, we'll always have to have MD-specific support in MI routines.=20
Different hardware does (some) things differently, which is where=20
competitive advantage comes in. :-) However the best case is where we can=
abstract out a concept that's somehow different and then code to that.=20
Thus if different hardware in the future follows the same conceptual=20
behavior, we're already set.
> No, but sifting thru the _output_ when you're doing a rototill is a
> PITA. The recent work I've done with com(4) and todr are good
> examples. I'm not sure why I bothered to fix pdp10, but I did.
Oh. Are you using id-utils and/or cscope? I find them essential for doing
system-wide sweeps, and they make them much simpler. I use vi, and load my
vi session up with a number of the needed changes, and the mechanical=20
changes all happen rather fast.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----