On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Norman Gray wrote:
> For what it's worth, the argument for keeping the libraries separate is
> that it is theoretically possible that an application could want only
> some subset of PCS, but I'm not claiming that this is a strong
> argument, especially since a big sticky lump as a shared library
> wouldn't have any performance cost. The components were separate in
> the old /star/sources tree, and that's the real reason I kept them
> separate in the newer system.
>
> If I recall correctly, it was only Mark who expressed an opinion about
> this at the time.
I wouldn't like to deny it, but neither can I remember which side of
the fence I came down on! I'd probably agree with Tim now, but this
sounds like a good example of one of those non-critical things that
didn't ought to be taking time away from more important projects
(with the possible exception of Tim's off-duty recreation).
Mark
--
Mark Taylor Starlink Programmer Physics, Bristol University, UK
[log in to unmask] +44-117-928-8776 http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/
|