On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 06:08:26PM +0100, has wrote: > So I'm more inclined towards the latter, but would like to know what > others think.)
I agree - if the app quits, it should stay quit. Sometimes when I'm trying to abort a script I quit an app that's being controlled, and to see it relaunch over and over and over again... aaargh. > - Do away with ASTS completely and always retrieve and parse > terminology on the fly (less efficient, especially when repeatedly > running short scripts, but completely foolproof). > > - Move to some sort of file-based cache, either managed completely > manually (users can selectively create terminology files for those > applications they want to avoid a cold start on), or automatically > (appscript could store all parsed terminologies in, say, /tmp). I'd say to do the first one, and if you get complaints, move to the second one. I got very confused about the role of ASTS in remote scripting myself (you may remember an email I sent you that effect :-), and at least in my case I don't use appscript for small scripts, I use it primarily for faceless background apps, so it wouldn't matter. > 3. Should appscript's built-in help() use textwrap to automatically > wrap long lines to fit in a standard 80-column terminal window? Or is > it better to leave the terminal window to wrap them naturally (i.e. > users may prefer to resize terminal windows themselves to make text > easier to read)? How about wrapping to the terminal width, whatever it happens to be? That's what most other things do. (You could always have a 'wrap=False' option to help(), if necessary.) -- Nicholas Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/njriley> _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
