On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:45, Daniel Stenning wrote:
The only objection to this in my mind would be "religious" ones that
have more to do with keeping RB "basic" for "basic's sake" and
"Nanny-like", rather than anything to do with assisting programmers
write good and fast code.
I'm not quite a nanny when it comes to keeping RB basic for
basic's sake. But I hope that if RS were to implement your
suggestions, it would keep the syntax simple and the implementation
secret so that I wouldn't have to worry about such things; and so
that the existing syntax didn't become cluttered.
-- Charles.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
