On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:56:21 +0200, Andreas Raab wrote:
...
> But you would have noticed that things got so inconsistently broken at  
> the metaclass level that unless there are major pay-offs, it simply  
> isn't worth the effort. That's what happened from 3.6 to 3.7. In 3.8  
> there was a major payoff - the m17n integration. That's why I then spent  
> the time needed. For 3.9, from a Tweak POV there isn't that much  
> interesting in there, so rather than going through the painful porting  
> exercise yet again I'll probably spend my time on bootstrapping a stable  
> (3.8-based) metaclass kernel which can be used in parallel to the 3.9  
> kernel. Which is not particularly nice but in the absence of any  
> inclination towards stable APIs the only alternative that I can see.

I'm trying to understand the issue, broken at the metaclass level, and  
downloaded (and updated </phew>) Tweak3.8-6665 and begun browsing the  
code. Mind to give a handful of directions what to look for to find things  
broken at the metaclass level, thank you in advance.

Also, does "broken at the metaclass level" rather belong to the structural  
phenomena species or is it perhaps possible to specify an interface which  
makes your code, without changing anything except perhaps use of #new,  
adaptable to the various versions of metaclass level. I'm willing and able  
to write such an interface, and Tweak for me would be a large enough  
system for pulling out of the "proof of concept" corner a new kind of  
interface.

And, btw, is there ANYTHING (google was of no help) which documents what  
you've done to the compiler, for example a new syntax diagram and/or a  
COMPLETE list with "what is for what"?

> I'm curious but is my position in this discussion really so outrageous?

Not at all :) It's all request-and-response and if Hilaire would have  
known the answers in advance then nobody else would have learned anything.

/Klaus

> Cheers,
>    - Andreas
>
>