Hi Ken,

Using a prefix implies that there is the possibility of extending the MC IDE in 
the future and a potential getting-in-the-way. This is something we don't want.

I think that simply calling these stacks "MetaCard Something" makes a 
friendlier impression. People who need to deal with plug-ins probably already 
have found a solution (e.g. checking the effective filename). 

Although it isn't a big deal, I think that using a prefix like "mc" is very 
RunRev-like and not the right approach. Since the number of IDE stacks is 
supposed to stay at a minimum, a prefix should be unnecessary. If we ever need 
something like this, it would be nice to come up with a really clever and 
friendly solution.

Best regards,

Mark Schonewille

Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer
KvK: 50277553

New: Download the Installer Maker Plugin 1.6 for LiveCode here http://qery.us/ce

On 30 jun 2011, at 15:33, Ken Ray wrote:

> Hey all,
> I just gave a presentation last weekend at the LiveCode Live event on the MC
> IDE and one of the things I brought up was the fact that a great benefit to
> the MC IDE vs the LiveCode IDE is that it really tries to "get out of the
> way of the developer."
> And although it currently does a pretty good job of that, there are a few
> places that IMHO still need to be changed. The two that immediately come to
> mind are the Preferences and Properties stacks, both of which prevent you as
> a developer from being able to name *your* stacks "Preferences" or
> "Properties", and there are probably other stack name conflicts as well.
> For the next build of the IDE, I'd like to change the IDE stack names to
> have an "mc" prefix (like "mcPreferences"), but since this affects anything
> that runs as a plugin, etc., I wanted to bring it up for discussion first.
> What are your thoughts on this? Good idea? Bad idea? ...?

metacard mailing list

Reply via email to