John, in my opinion, behaviors is simplicity. You don't have to deal with the name of the buttons (for example), just use "me". It is completely on the road of a xTalk language. Same things for nested behaviors.
Jacques Clavell Le 12 juil. 2013 à 20:48, John Dixon <dixo...@hotmail.co.uk> a écrit : > > >> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:58:29 -0700 >> From: ambassa...@fourthworld.com >> To: use-livecode@lists.runrev.com >> Subject: Re: Chained Behaviors > >> Nested behaviors simply extend the value of such a mechanism, at long >> last giving xTalk one of the most valuable aspects of OOP: subclasses. > > Richard... > > I hear what you say, but does an xTalk language need to go down this road > ?... or to perhaps put a direct way... Should an xTalk language be going down > this road ?... What I am worried about is that there are a lot of people > jumping on the 'open source' bandwagon... wanting to change things for what > they see as improvement whilst completely forgetting that it is simplicity > not complexity that has got xTalk where it is today... _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
