Diane Holt <holtdl@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm not trying to re-open this debate, honestly,
No problem with that.
> but I just have to say that I find it interesting that you think
> heading towards something like "configure" is desirable, just to
> avoid having a test-for-value. Personally, I find "configure" to be
> one of the yuckiest mangled mess of spaghetti-ed crud I've ever run
> into (and I've run into a considerable amount of mangled crud over
> the years, so that's saying quite a lot).
I think we are talking about to separate things here. What I'd like to
see is a tool that fills the needs configure does, I've never said I
wanted to inherit the "yucky" implementation.
Stefan
|