[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] spiffy parameters
From: |
Peter Bex |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] spiffy parameters |
Date: |
Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:45:39 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:32:29AM +0100, felix winkelmann wrote:
> Yes, blame him! ;-)
>
> Using parameters for all configuration options wasn't such a great idea
> from the beginning. It makes sense to use parameters, when you want
> thread-local options, but the spiffy configuration should be applied
> to all threads anyway. Note that thread-specific parameters are still
> that: parameters.
I have to disagree. They /were/ a very good idea, since they allow you
to fire up multiple instances of spiffy with different configurations
(like on several ports) from one application.
I sacrificed flexibility few people will use for another kind of
flexibility more people will use. I think it's a good tradeoff.
Regards,
Peter
--
http://www.student.ru.nl/peter.bex
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
experience much like composing poetry or music."
-- Donald Knuth
pgphiblfgffnq.pgp
Description: PGP signature