Chris Benatar wrote: > Yes, I do agree with you on this although I do feel that the object > model is the way most people would see the language ie. although it is > an extension of it, it is a pretty critical one. Not sure what would be > involved in changing the languages interface to the object model or > even if it can be done but it certainly would be welcomed.
We can define new API functions and implement them so that the OOoBasic API built upon them becomes "easier" to use or we can add some smart functions to OOoBasic that lets it emulate "easy" access using the more complex API functions. As an example for the second approach, we have some objects that offer an API like: n = MyObject.getPropertyValue( "PropName" ) Basic can automatically inspect this object and allows you to write n = MyObject.PropName There are a lot more things possible. VBA uses the same tricks, the "raw" API of Word or Excel is also much more complicated than you could guess from seeing VBA code. Currently we are investigating both ways: we are looking for new, simpler APIs and we are thinking about more "smart" capabilities of OOoBasic. >>> In defence of the OOo API: >>> I can do things that were virtually impossible with Microsoft Office >>> (MSO). For example, my "reveal codes" macro simply wouldn't be possible >>> in MSO. > > But intruth for 99.9% of users this level of power and sophistication > is not required and it comes at a price. I agree that there is a trade-off, but I disagree with the 99.9% number, I can't accept it even for the absolute beginner. Trade-offs create dynamic processes, a permanent struggle where evolving experience might allow you to approach the optimum over time. Best regards, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead Please reply to the list only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spam sink. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
