> I agree that this is a desirable feature. What you did seems not all > that different from Lisp's advice, so you should be pleased. The fact > that it still raises hackles should suggest that there is still a better > way to do it while maintaining the desired optionality and separation of > control (i.e. no embedded if's). I don't like the numeric ordering, but > I can't think how to do it better at the moment (something about > dependencies). I'm sure this will make java programmers run for the hills, perl programmers will like it though ;-) _______________________________________________ Dynapi-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
- Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Dann
- RE: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Eytan Heidingsfeld
- Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Daniel Aborg
- Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Jordi - IlMaestro - Ministral
- Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Daniel Aborg
- Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Jordi - IlMaestro - Ministral
- RE: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Cameron Hart
- RE: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Pascal
- Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Daniel Aborg
- Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Daniel LaLiberte
- RE: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Cameron Hart
- RE: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Pascal
- RE: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Cameron Hart
- FW: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Jack_Speranza
- Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Richard Bennett
- RE: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Cameron Hart
- Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Jordi - IlMaestro - Ministral
- RE: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X nicola
- RE: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Jack_Speranza
- Re: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Thomas Hering
- RE: [Dynapi-Dev] DynAPI X Cameron Hart
