Re: gnome-config problems

[Jason Gilbert <jason scott net>]

Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> 
> Jason Gilbert <jason@scott.net> writes:
> 
> > > 5 times less redundant,
> >
> > I guess the redundency is the clarity of the option names?
> 
> No, the redundancy is in <FOO>...</FOO> being longer than (FOO ...)

I would say this is clarity.  We're talking about 5-10 chars per item.
If you have multiple, say 5 or more, nested configs how easy is is to
tell
where the end ')' belong or which one is 'supposed to' go w/ which.
w/ the </foo> syntax you instantly now that </foo> is supposed to end
</foo> and not </bar>.  With scheme you just have ')' and ')'.

> > > trivial to parse,
> > > and easy to machine-generate,
> >
> > How many web browsers are out there now?
> > How many people are dynamically generating HTML on the fly w/ cgi?
> 
> What is your point?  SGML is *very* hard to parse correctly.  Scheme
> is trivial in comparison.

I wasn't talking about SGML, I'm talking about having a small,modified
HTML-ish
config spec.  HTML can't be that hard to parse, otherwise I wouldn't
think that it would still be so widely used.  I could be wrong though.

jason

-- 
Jason Gilbert | http://www.scott.net/~jason/ | http://www.mantissa.com/

"The total job will be in the software, and we'll be able to write big
fat programs. We can let them run somewhat inefficiently because there
will be so much horsepower that just sits there. The real focus won't
be who can cram it down in, or who can do it in machine language. It
will be on who can define the right user interface and properly
integrate the main packages." -- Bill Gates, PC Magazine 1982