Guys:
OK, I'll get of this list, maybe, for the rest of the day.
BUT, I would like to point out the nub, the source of this
"problem" which, being greatly unfair, and self-servingly
taken out of context, is the inconsistency of Odysseas saying:
-- quote --
Makefiles need standard extensions so as there
are standard rules that can do one thing for one type
of a file and a different thing for another type of a
file. That's why if you write your C application
-- unquote --
SO: Odysseas needs, er, uniform file extensions to
do his bit in his nascent Makefile system and populate
his
SUFFIXES:
SUFFIXES: .php .xml
stanzas in his Makefiles and make his life easier.
and Alex saying:
-- quote --
Re: different extensions, I'm willing to entertain them but I prefer to
use
directory structure rather than file extension wherever possible.
-- unquote --
SO: Alex wants/needs "information" to be implicit in directory
structure so he can make his life easier with his (still fully unknown)
"package" concept.
But, I want my cake and eat it too! There has to be a way
to accommodate this. I like Adreas' last suggestion to solve
the warty import() "problem". And, waaall, surely Odysseas
can be careful in his Makefiles by doing
SUFFIXES:
SUFFIXES: .php .xml .mod .layout .master
while considering .layout as a .php, for example. Now if
that is accommodated, some other spoiled brat like me
would want .LYT for layout files, .MST for master files.
He could just add them if he correctly edits the Makefile.
Besides, you always need to consider that it is always possible
to turn a disadvantage into an advantage. I would suggest that
later on, when BC is a bloomin' success and the M$ kiddies are
clamoring for it, you might have to accommodate 8.3 files,
upper-cased, like *.PHP. YOU WILL BE READY FER 'EM.
Yes, Virginia, I am obsessed... Let's watch a video.
_jef
--
Justin Farnsworth
Eye Integrated Communications
321 South Evans - Suite 203
Greenville, NC 27858 | Tel: (252) 353-0722
|
