scriptsLimits

Richard Gaskin ambassador at fourthworld.com
Mon Jul 19 03:44:15 EDT 2004


Judy Perry wrote:

 >> FWIW, I've been advised by Scott Raney not to rely on dot notation
 >> in my own handler names, as future versions of the engine may
 >> include OOPS extensions which may affect existing uses of dot
 >> notation in unpredictable ways.
 >
 > I thought that Kevin had assured us that Rev wasn't going to
 > "go over" to using dot syntax.  No?   Am I remembering incorrectly?

I can't speak for Kevin, but I'll venture a guess of what Scott was 
thinking, and maybe he or Tuv or Kevin can expand on/correct this:

The whole crew seems pretty committed to retaining the flavor of the 
language.  The question is not whether they alter existing ways of doing 
things, but rather how they might enable wholly new paradigms like OOPS 
within an otherwise procedural framework.

Outside of OOPS dot notation has little practical value, but as 
OOPS-like extensions get added to the language it might make sense to 
consider it.

Scott's comment on this wasn't a commitment to any specific 
implementation, merely an acknowledgement that OOPS has been a 
consideration for some time (see the bottom of 
<http://www.metacard.com/pi5.html>), and when it moves into the active 
design stage it may make good sense to adopt some of the more common 
OOPS conventions for working with such new constructs.

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Media Corporation
  ___________________________________________________
  Rev tools and more:  http://www.fourthworld.com/rev



More information about the use-livecode mailing list