Thanks for the clear description. I have just 2 things I would like to clarify:
On Dec 19, 2014, at 13:55, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
- the metadata itself is not very well defined (I would like something like the ones in VW and StX, but is like a weird array right now), because of this, Spec has created some âin the middleâ way to define specs in a more âdeclarative wayâ, breaking the original design (the one I just pointed)
This is the part of Spec that I like the least. But I do not see a nicer way to do it than this âdeclarative wayâ you mention. It is however a complex problem and I welcome any suggestions on how to better address it!
3rd: Frankly, with this âmore declarative wayâ spec adopted more or less the same path glamour took. But if this is the point, glamour does a really better work on the âdeclarativeâ part. Of course, it does that at the cost of being less reusable, but well⦠we are talking about Spec, not Glaour here :)
Yes, that is the typical tradeoff of a domain-specific solution versus a general-purpose solution. Because Glamour is more restricted it can solve this difficult problem in a cleaner way. But if you want to do things that fall outside of the Glamour way of doing things you are in trouble (or even deep trouble. I have experienced that). ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile