when i first understood the "global view" concept (no name for it at the time) i assumed it was a hierarchical thing. i figured you could corral a bunch of commands together and give them a few views to fall back on. turns out they were truly global. i was thinking "cascade".
what say we talk about groups of commands with groups of default views? make just one of these groups and you've got the elegance of 1.0. make a whole bunch of them and you can get granularity as high as you please. you end up with a "command-set" rather than a single "command" being self-contained. isn't this a good way to scope views? On Thursday 14 February 2002 20:34, Scott Hernandez wrote: > Before I go into a discussion of the why... Let me ask this: > > Should there be an option to have global views work they used to? (I was > thinking along the lines of a param for the config file to switch modes) > > > ----------------- > Jeff and I spent a good amount of time discussing this since the 1.0 > release. What we wanted to provide was a way to define global views, > like we already had, but not always to copy them into each command. We > basically wanted to be able to guarantee that a command could be > self-contained. If you looked at the command def, you would see all view > paths out. This led us down the road of global views with local command > refs. -- Beautiful Code BV Rotterdam, The Netherlands http://www.beautifulcode.nl _______________________________________________ Mav-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mav-user
