> Come to think of it, it would be easy to to leave
> out commands that are implemented in FreeScript
> with that dynamic syntax extension thing :)
Alain: Hip
> Uli: yeah, we could implement all of those commands
> as XCMDs, then it'd really become easy...
> just remove the XCMDs and the syntax extensions
> for them and everything'd be fine ... ?
Alain: Hip
> Uli: Sounds a bit of a kludge, but since that code
> would mostly be platform-specific anyway it should
> be easy. And the code that isn't platform-specific
> would probably be FreeScript anyway, right? Heh :-)
Alain: Hooray!
-----------
Alain: FreeScript contains only platform-neutral code,
and all of the platform-specific stuff is implemented
as FC-externals. This is definitely agree-able.
Alain: We will probably take it a step further by
segmenting the platform-neutral code into modular
libraries, with or without Managers � la Mac.
Alain: We might take it still further by making these
modular libraries optional, depending on the context
of your particular application.
Alain: To make standalones as trim as possible, the
ideal level of granularity from a develop-perspective
would be on a command-per-command basis, but I am told
that this is unlikely. The main reason given is that
someone might construct some expressions with the "do"
command at runtime that use FC syntax that has been
filtered out because the command was not literally
present in the code. Good point. Some kind of tradeoff
will be necessary:
1. No "do" command at all, for this reason and for the
other reasons given against its perpetuation.
2. No "do" command when you save as a standalone.
3. If the "do" command is present, then the standalone
does no filtering whatsoever. Consequence: large
standalone if you use "do".
4. YOUR SUGGESTION(S) HERE: ___________________
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
