Again with the start using

[Richard Gaskin]

Dar Scott wrote:

>>> Yes.  As we (list) discussed earlier, there are different styles and 
>>> I've been thinking of adding a brief thought to that.  I've been 
>>> trying to collect methods to protect the using-developer from 
>>> breaking "compound objects" and maybe turn lemons to lemonade and 
>>> exploit selectGroupedControls.  Maybe there can also be an 
>>> "effective" or other keyword modifier for "number of" or layer 
>>> referencing that does not penetrate these.
>>
>> Agreed.  Feel like posting that to Bugzilla?
> 
> I don't mind.  However, I do have lots of suggestions in.  Some are off 
> the wall.  I wouldn't want a good idea to get lost in the shuffle 
> because it is viewed as just another one of Dar's wild ideas.  Let's 
> bounce it off the improve list.

I'll vote for it. :)

>>> Based on your earlier advice, I think I have a way to have my 
>>> libraries or controls that need certain messages to use a couple 
>>> common frontscripts for all controls and libraries in the super 
>>> family of my controls and libraries.
>>
>> That's how my libs work, but I generally require few frontScripts.  In 
>> the absence of a greater number of frontsccripts, you could use one as 
>> a dispatcher, trapping a variety of messages for multiple libraries.  
>> It does complicate things for distributing them to work independently 
>> in others' stuff, though.
> 
> I would think this would make them work better in other's stuff.

It would to the degree that there is one generic dispatcher for 
everyone, and that it be clean, simple, and efficient.  I'll add that to 
the Revolution Interoperability Initiative proposal I'm putting together 
for discussion on the Improve list....

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Media Corporation
  ___________________________________________________________
  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com       http://www.FourthWorld.com