Yep, that summarizes my thinking as well. #ship
On Apr 18, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Mark Chu-Carroll wrote:
> No, I don't think that there are any other reasonable call-points. In fact,
> I'm not sure if three is too many, but I'm pretty sure that more would be
> a sign that this design isn't right.
>
Sounds good to me. If I understand correctly, this models the API hooks
fairly closely (I think they have before/after/on error) and this is before
parse / before command / after command, which seems right.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Mark Chu-Carroll wrote:
> No, I don't think that there
No, I don't think that there are any other reasonable call-points. In fact,
I'm not sure if three is too many, but I'm pretty sure that more would be
a sign that this design isn't right.
-mark
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Joseph Smith wrote:
> I think this sounds reasonable- do you
I think this sounds reasonable- do you foresee there being any additions here?
I’m not sure there’d be any more call-points, so it seems like a good way to
move forward by adding flexibility.
On Apr 18, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Mark Chu-Carroll wrote:
> I'm contemplating making a change to the curren
