If your class is declared as sending an event, who does it send it to? If it is itslef, that means it calls this.onfoo.sendEvent(), and if so, shouldn't there be a default null handler for it?
On 12/14/05, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This was discussed previously internally (I had originally proposed a
single tag) and people found that confusing. If this list feels it
is not confusing, then we can go back.
I was convinced by the discussion that it is useful to have some
verbosity in the language as it acts like an error-correction code.
If we go back to having a single tag, it would be easier for a type-
oh to result in you declaring that you send an event rather than
handle it.
On 14 Dec 2005, at 14:26, Henry Minsky wrote:
> In your proposal you have
>
> <event name="eventName" />
>
> This would replace the current idiom of declaring your intention to
> send an
> event by using `<attribute name="eventName" value="null" />`.
> Declaring
> events means that you can then send them without getting a debugger
> warning
> (because the compiler will correctly initialize them). It also
> gives us
> freedom in the future of choosing how to implement events.
>
>
> Could we make it so that
>
> <handler name="eventName"/>
> means the same thing, so we don't need to have both <handler> and
> <event>?
>
> Or maybe we should just use the name "event" instead of "handler"?
> "handler"
> seems a little too close to "method" whereas
> "event" is pretty clearly event-related.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Henry Minsky
> Software Architect
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
