Thu Apr 3 16:28:44 EDT 2008

uneasy feeling

something doesn't feel right with this parameterization. however, it
does look simpler..

maybe some mode should be added to automatically extract which
parameters are redefined? but then, 'super' might not do anything.. i
need to think a bit about this.

EDIT: so why is this parametrization necessary? it's a cross-cutting
concern: OPTIMIZATION. it's used not (necessarily) to change
functionality, but to change implementation.

the thing which makes it a bit half-assed, is the way in which
responsabilities of the core and the extension (pic18) are
distributed. is there a sound abstraction hidden here?

OK.. so what about automatically collecting all the extensions at
compile time, but leaving them unspecified in the code. what about
doing it the other way around: specifying ALL target specific macros
as an extension, and have them define the parameter if it doesn't
exist yet.