Meredith, DJ (David) wrote:
Option 1) ‘out of scope’ [...] Option 2) ‘in scope’ [...]
According to what I heard in the session, the option that was most likely to be favoured was a hybrid between the two. In particular, though there would be a parameter sweep where this feature was formally out of scope, there would also be a standard extension to this which would enable the generation of substituted files. There are advantages to doing this. For one thing, it is going to be easier to implement the core parameter sweep correctly as it has "fewer moving parts". For another thing, this should also mean that the "extension to an extension" should be small and focussed; it will not need to say anything about the sweep and value generation functions, and can instead focus on filename operations and how to name regions of files for substitution. This was just my impression, but it was a positive impression and it is something I think you shouldn't be too down about. We *do* understand the real requirement for these things (and definitely in clearer focus than before too, so the meeting was worthwhile). Donal.