From: Joshua N Pritikin <jpritikin@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 07:15:29 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document git-runstatus
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:
> 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.