Thanks for the reply :)---I still think that it is the best possible solution.
Best, Stephan On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 16:58 +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Stephan Saalfeld wrote: > > > Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Albert Cardona wrote: > > > > > >> 2012/10/24 Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]>: > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Albert Cardona wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> 2012/10/23 Barry DeZonia <[email protected]>: > > >> > > > >> > Note that "IJ" in ImageJ2 scripting refers to the current ImageJ > > >> > context, i.e. an instance of imagej.ImageJ. It does *not* refer to the > > >> > static class ij.IJ -- which would not make too much sense anyway, > > >> > because we are most likely not able to support too many of that class' > > >> > functions. > > >> > > >> the ij.jar is a jar and is included in ImageJ2. I understand it may be > > >> desirable to intercept some of its functionality such as IJ.log and > > >> redirect it, but other than that, being a jar, one would except > > >> beanshell and other scripting languages to load and use jars in the > > >> classpath as usual. > > > > > >As in plain Java, if you have a local variable of the same name as a class > > >you imported, the local variable takes precedence. You can always access > > >the class by the full class name: ij.IJ.log("Hello, Albert"); > > > > > >I am open to suggestions what might be a better name for the current > > >ImageJ context (I considered "context", "this", "ImageJ", which all clash > > >with existing entities even worse than "IJ"). It is still early enough to > > >change things without much of a hassle. > > > > What about IJ2? > > I am torn. I really like it for its simplicity but I do not want to > ingrain the "2" too much into our design. > > Ciao, > Dscho > > -- _______________________________________________ ImageJ-devel mailing list [email protected] http://imagej.net/mailman/listinfo/imagej-devel
