Re: [PATCH] Document git-runstatus
- From
Joshua N Pritikin <jpritikin@pobox.com>
- Date
- Nov 20, 2006, 07:15 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20061120071529.GF3315@always.joy.eth.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <20061119181307.GY7201@pasky.or.cz>
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 07:13:08PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> BTW, I've finally found a fine example of situation parallel to Git: > TeX! There are the core TeX commands (plumbing) and plain TeX (basic > porcelain) on top of that as well as a bunch of other macro sets (other > porcelains). Now I need to dig out The TeXbook from wherever I've put it > to see how did Knuth deal with it, documentation-wise.
Gahh! Please don't use TeX as an example. As far as I know, TeX doesn't offer lexical scope. Hence, action-at-a-distance is commonplace which makes program execution extremely difficult for mere mortals to predict. I am constantly amazed at popularity of TeX, in spite of its grave deficiencies. Perhaps there isn't a good alternative yet.