Re: script.c -- job sizing...

[Rob Browning]

Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:

> Can't think of anything tricky, really.  Given that we have the code
> in C already, what would be the advantage of rewriting it in Scheme?

I'd just seen a comment in the code suggesting that perhaps it should
be in scheme, and I suppose in general, I tend to feel that unless
things *need* to be in C, they should be in scheme, but if the
comment's irrelevant, and there's no good reason for script.c to be in
scheme, then I should probably leave it alone.

One minor argument in favor I could see is that it'd probably be
easier to fix/extend when needed.  If we had -x for example, we could
probably implement most of the other options by capturing/executing
suitable continuations.

-- 
Rob Browning <address@hidden> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930