>But they follow your guidelines, correct? And why don't you just put
>them in use?
I do. But openStack is never sent when a stack is start-used.
>I don't support obfuscation to prevent the unenlightened from abusing
>the language. It'll already be harder to use than a function or
>handler, because you have a slightly uglier parameter convention, won't
>get nearly as usefull error messages, and many of the `examples' will
>be written in NullCPU[0] Asm.
>
>We'll be sure to document it as for major syntax extensions, why
>functions/handlers are better.
I didn't mean to give it cryptic syntax, however, I was thinking about
some security measures:
1) No real scriptable interface, to prevent viruses from changing internal
behaviour of stacks
2) The editor is not part of the official distribution. It's a programmers'
tool you have to separately download
3) No changing at runtime. It should at least require restarting the
application
4) It should be application-global. You shouldn't be allowed to add syntax
on a per-stack basis. This will remove the 'coolness' factor but still
allow to have it in a standalone or in FC itself (e.g. make it a feature of
the home stack only)
The limitations above will not bite people who use this facility as
intended, but will bite people who are doing it just because they want
their stacks to look cooler by adding new syntax at runtime.
>And we'll put something like this in the manual:
> ...and that should you use it for every trite bit of trivial
> code your write, you'll be hung, drawn, quartered, boiled in
> oil, soaked in chlorine, and given Ebola Zaire (not
> necessarily in that order) by a posse of angry scripters.
> Further, you'll go down in the history of computer science as
> the only thing worse than INTERCAL's `come from' command, and
> your first-born son/daughter will disown you; your second-
> born will be killed by elephant excretement; and after that,
> you'll be impotent/sterile and not have any more. But that's
> not all, you are nothing but a spam-sucking[1] ooze of low-
> quality bat toenails.
It shouldn't be part of the user manual. It should also not be part of the
user SDK. It should only be part of FC's internal documentation for people
who want to join in development of the application. Oh, and it should be
re-worded a bit. We don't want to tempt fate, do we?
>(Then again, we might just wind up with your FC gurus calling
>themselves spam-sucking ooze or bat toenails... but, hell, that'll be
>so funny that I don't want to stop it)
Put it on your list of proposals on SourceForge so we'll remembe rit when
the time arrives ;-)
>Because some of use over-baked programmers here will no doubt be doing
>that, and see no reason to do it by hand every time.
>
>But a unsupported goodies folder is fine with me.
Actually, I think it'll be almost as easy if we make every package a
registerable piece of code (like in PowerPlant, where you can register all
classes, or just the ones you think you'll be using, to the PPob parser).
You'd just go to a file named, say, FreeCardMain.cp and comment out the
include statements and registration calls for the packages you don't want,
recompile and you're hunky-dory (is that the right word?).
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
