OK then what is a schedule for resolving this? I have no objection,
it would seem to make sense, but having just rewritten a bunch of the
event stuff for 3.1, I know that it's pretty extensive in the docs
and sample code, and so may have a noticable documentation
implication. Nothing too scary, I think, but noticable. So it would
be nice to get this decided soon.
Thanks,
jrs
On Oct 24, 2006, at 6:29 PM, P T Withington wrote:
Proposed for Legal's.
On 2006-10-24, at 17:57 EDT, John Sundman wrote:
Effective when? With legals?
jrs
On Oct 23, 2006, at 4:36 PM, P T Withington wrote:
What do people think about changing the idiom:
<event>.sendEvent(<value>);
to:
sendEvent(<event>, <value>);
?
This would make it easier to detect errors (trying to send an
event to a non-existent event) and to optimize (to not bother if
there are no listenters for the event).
Comments?
