YAPIB

[The Anarcat]

Well, yes.. I'm sorry too. But I feel that libh's pseudo-existence is 
more a nuisance right now. The architecture of libh is a bit too big and 
has this exact problem of putting its hands in too many pieces (as some 
people have pointed out before). It's really hard to "get into" libh, 
even for people that actually worked with it before. So libh is always 
brought back as that "effort in progress" precluding other efforts to 
build up, the way I see it. So I'm thereby stopping the discourse of 
saying "libh development is slow". It's stopped.

I'd like to see libh's concept recuperated in a fresh implementation 
instead of the current one, especially since we now have SWIG and don't 
need to implement our own TCL magic! :)

If I ever work again on libh, it'll be a rewrite. That should prove 
interesting. ;)

A.

Jordan K Hubbard wrote:

>Sorry to hear you say that.  It was probably the only effort (which 
>attempted to solve the larger set of issues and not simply peck away at 
>the problem piecemeal) to ever have any code associated with it.
>
>On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 08:40 AM, The Anarcat wrote:
>
>  
>
>>libh's dead, folks. It's been dead for a good while now. I was just
>>kicking it to make it look like we could tear something out of this
>>monster.
>>    
>>