[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS (Version 5)
- To: Dan L. Pierson <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Issue: REQUIRE-PATHNAME-DEFAULTS (Version 5)
- From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: 9 Dec 88 09:17 PST
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: Dan L. Pierson <email@example.com>'s message of Fri, 09 Dec 88 11:37:43 EST
But isn't that exactly the safety net? That is, if someone sends me a
program where they expected PROVIDE and REQUIRE to load, and my
implementation doesn't load, I'll try to load the files myself in the right
order. If I get it wrong, I'll get an error message-- saved from making a
mistake, thus a safety net.
I'm not sure how it harms rather than aids portability, since you also say
that you expect vendors to provide their own version of it anyway.