On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:43 PM, okay_awright <okay_awri...@ddcr.biz> wrote: > But if I may suggest, and from a user perspective, I'm not sure about > the idea of "polluting" your great functional scripts with objects > though. I personally feel a bit confused when both ways are mixed > together. But, very likely, I may be the only one in this case.
Interesting opinion. Are you referring to some language or experience you've had? In liquidsoap, we would add the least possible amount of OO to be able to (1) know what sources offers which commands and (2) use these commands from the language. For most users it wouldn't change anything at all. For users who use server.execute(..) it should simplify things a lot. Finally, it'll open up the possibility to attach new commands to sources. Only in that case will you see new constructs and syntax -- I'm saying this because I suspect that you're scared to see verbose OO style in your scripts, which is a valid concern. Cheers, -- David ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Magic Quadrant for Content-Aware Data Loss Prevention Research study explores the data loss prevention market. Includes in-depth analysis on the changes within the DLP market, and the criteria used to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these DLP solutions. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51385063/ _______________________________________________ Savonet-devl mailing list Savonet-devl@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/savonet-devl
