Transcript is flexible and requires me to make choices.

[Dar Scott]

On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 11:12 AM, tuviah snyder wrote:

> So I'm for any syntax which would enable me to precompile some 
> functions
> (such as math functions, ect) without losing the flexibility in cases 
> where
> I may want to dynamically intercept messages like mousemove in a 
> backscript.

Perhaps a tiny first step would be to optimize function binding within 
the same script.

This might be triggered by a keyword at the function definition.

It also might be done with notation at the call.  This would clutter 
the call but has the advantage in that it would create a compile error 
if the function is not in the script.  Maybe all calls in braces must 
be resolved as built-in or script local.

Inline might be on this path.

If it wasn't for front scripts this could be a transparent 
optimization.  Or am I not understanding front scripts right?

Dar Scott