Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Ping: case insensitive filesystems

[C Y]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> C Y <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> | I have always thought that if we are making Axiom into literate
> | documents, they should read as such - if I am looking for the pamphlet
> | that describes the SPAD compiler I am interested in what it IS doing and
> | what it is intended to do and why, not what it did in the past before it
> | was fixed.
> 
> This type of stance is appropriate for trunk.  My experience with
> workind on branches tells me that it creates troubles when it comes to
> merge do merges.  But, hey the system is already largely
> non-documented, so why not continue that way?  

Experience trumps ideas ;-), and I must concede with so many SCMs being
used for Axiom a coherent changlog setup is probably close to impossible
in any case.

> | To take another example, I would like to see us first write the
> | paper/book on WHAT the SPAD language definition is, WHY we want it that
> | way, and HOW we want it to work (compilation algorithms, compiler design
> | considerations, etc.). 
> 
> Yes, we just need volunteers to tackle the problem.

I think we should make the decision as a project not to wait any longer
for Aldor, and commit to improving SPAD - up until now I think there has
been hesitation to commit serious effort to SPAD due to the possibility
of Aldor becoming available and making such work unnecessary.  To my
mind the first step to improving SPAD is to decide what SPAD should be,
since right now it doesn't have a formal language definition.
Unfortunately I am not an expert in this field.

> | In the process, we will probably learn how it
> | SHOULD be done, rather than how it is done now.  The existing code will
> | be very useful as a reference and some pieces might be drop in, but I
> | would like to see the ideas lead the code instead of the code leading
> | the ideas.
> 
> since you feel you must say that, could you explain in how you see the
> codes leading the ideas in the current practice?

Hmm.  I thought I knew what I was thinking when I said that, but on
reflection I'm not sure.  Strike it.

Cheers,
CY