>Inline might be on this path.
Agreed. Let's discuss this on the improve list.
Tuviah
___
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>Kinda like in C++ where the virtual keyword changes how the
>functions-object lookups are done at runtime? (totally from memory; I
>never was a good C++ programmer)
Yes. There is a reason why methods aren't virtual by default in C sharp
http://www.artima.com/intv/nonvirtual.html
Tuviah
__
On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 11:12 AM, tuviah snyder wrote:
So I'm for any syntax which would enable me to precompile some
functions
(such as math functions, ect) without losing the flexibility in cases
where
I may want to dynamically intercept messages like mousemove in a
backscript.
Perhap
On Feb 9, 2004, at 11:12 AM, tuviah snyder wrote:
Well in some frameworks/languages this is a feature..but it would
greatly
improve engine speed to be able to resolve which object gets the
message and
prepare the parameters at compile time for certain user defined
functions/handlers.enabling Rev
>
> On Feb 9, 2004, at 4:16 AM, Frank Leahy wrote:
>
> Richard wrote:
>>> What is the argument against the xTalk messaging model?
>
> I'll keep repeating it: the argument is you don't know at until runtime
> if the message goes where you think it will go. One way to state it is
> "throwing a messag
