From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 21:58:05 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <0666415404bd7d49e9a122f364b96fbd@swcp.com> References: <6aaf2d79af665bf1905db13e44e194e5@quanstro.net> <3c68655ad1dadf393d44b4a945abbd7a@swcp.com> <26f3b3b7fc6f7e8e8d90094305925bdd@kw.quanstro.net> <0666415404bd7d49e9a122f364b96fbd@swcp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] nupas update Topicbox-Message-UUID: 262177f8-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > and without use flags I end up having k*m packages instead of m. So the > question still comes to do I write it to allow 2^n^m possible combinations > and document the two most common scenarios, or write 2*m package variants > and leave it to the interested to populate any of the remaining 2^{k-2} > permutations. I'm still undecided, but I know then kinds of bugs that > creep up when splitting trees like that. (I guess like splitting hairs ;-) at a minimum, ditch the use flags. these complications are why i decided it would be easier to just do 9atom. - erik