From: Justin F. <je...@ey...> - 2001-06-30 16:32:33
|
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 |