The distinction between oldunix and oldwindows is simply a recognition
of the fact that they don't work precisely the same way. A dotted
notation is OK by me. Any other people have opinions? This code
will be written in the next couple of weeks.
=====================================================
Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769
+1-631-244-3035
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====================================================
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Miguel Howard wrote:
> Herbert said:
>
> >> As we build up a new set of defaults we could then add
> >> one more command
> >>
> >> set default <setup>
> >>
> >> where setup would be the name of a "standard" set of default
> >> settings all packaged together (e.g. oldunix, oldwindows,
> >> newcommon, etc.) This way we would not break any existing
> >> scripts, but could move towards common choices that satisfy
> >> current demands.
>
> I think that this sounds like a *very* good idea.
>
> One thing ... it isn't clear to me why we would want to make the platform
> distinction (you said 'oldunix, oldwindows').
>
> If there is a need to make some type of platform distinction, then we may
> want to consider a hyphenated or dotted name so that it could be optional:
> old
> old.unix
> old.windows
>
> Miguel
>
>
>
> [*** Normal Termination ***]
>
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click
_______________________________________________
Jmol-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
