> > That makes much more sense to me. It sounds like a very
> > interesting project now that I understand it. I guess we would have
>
> > to invent a lot of new commands/syntax for this low-level approach,
> > but it could still follow the general xTalk format.
>
> Andre : Wow! I didn't really think anybody would go for the idea.
Alain : I am surprised as well.
> Andre : It wouldn't actually be that much work. All you would have to
> do is write an application framework like mac zoop for example and
> have the xTalk engine call these higher level commands as script
> commands and functions.
Alain : This sounds reassuring. I'm a little bit worried that we may
spreading ourselves a little bit thin.
> Andre : It would be fantastic if we made a plug in compiler for MW
> CodeWarrior. Then you could have a xTalk compiler in a great IDE with
> full access to the Universal Interfaces.
Alain : Any volunteers ?
> Andre : Somehow I don't see it happening. Well these dreams keep me
> going these days.
Alain : Why so pessimistic ?
> Andre : While I'm dreaming. Object xTalk is another dream of mine.
Alain : Object-oriented version of xTalk. Why not ? But later, eh !
> Andre : Anybody got the address to subscribe to the xTalk list?
Alain : I don't have under my nose but, once your a member of the xTalk
mailing list, the address for posts will be : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
