Re: Linuxconf
On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
> > i am also not sure that editing the config files directly is a good
> > thing. in fact, i think it is prone to error, with potentially
> > disastrous results (the parser would either place arbitrary restrictions
> > on what can be done in the config file or would make mistakes). IMO,
> > the config files should be generated from a plain text template (i.e.
> > the config file plus some markup language), merging in the config values
> > stored in a config database.
>
> This wouldn't fix the parser problems and would add another level
> of complexity.
yes, it would fix the parser problems because it would completely avoid the
need for a parser. if you don't need one, then it can't be a problem.
> The proper solution would be to fix the parser.
unfortunately, this means placing arbitrary restrictions on the config
files....anything which hasn't been programmed into the parser can not
be handled by it, and will get blown away by the pretty GUI config tool
next time it is run.
an easy to use configuration thingy is necessary and a Good Thing, but
not at the price of losing the ability to hand-edit whatever you like in
the text files.
craig
ack! i've just discovered that windowmaker "steals" the F11 key and pops
up a menu...which is what i've programmed into vi as !}par^M (pipe
current paragraph through par). this sucks...my fingers are trained to
hit F11 whenever i finish a paragraph. time to switch back to afterstep i
think.
--
craig sanders
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: