Re: [q-lang-users] Proposal for two minor rearrangements

[Rob H. <hub...@gm...>]

> John Cowan wrote:
> > I think it better for the code to break than to suddenly run 20 or 200
> > times slower because you excluded clib for some reason.

I think (2) would be a bad idea. Thus, I agree with Albert here.

Perhaps there's some argument for the user getting some indication (a
warning?) that Q "fall back" functions are being used. But as removal
of clib would be deliberate, perhaps there's little need for that.


Albert Graef wrote:
> However, if that's a real showstopper for anyone, then I could add a
> --with(out)-clib option to the configury. Opinions?

And/or --with(out)-qfallback ??

My opinion: these are worth doing only if very easy.


Rob.