Hi Richard, > > There has been much debate in this thread, including presumption > of what the > folks at RunRev would feel or should feel is important. But please note > that the RunRev folks have not spoken for themselves on this yet > one way or > another. We could continue this conjecture, or we could pursue results:
I'm hoping this debate helps all of us to better understand issues. If it ends up name-calling, then we won't succeed, but so far, it seems to be fairly professional (except for the kill Applescript post;-) Certainly RR and MC haven't weighed in, but many times this area provides a forum for change in both the IDE and the engine. > > The use-rev list is primarily for user-to-user assistance. > Feature requests > are normally channelled through the improve-rev list. As with any other > feature request, just propose a spec for how you would like to access > ActiveX components to that list and watch what happens.... > > The spec proposal is an important ingredient of a useful feature request. > It may or may not be implemented as initially proposed, but the ensuing > discussion will refine things for the greatest benefit for the greatest > number of users. > Good point about proposing a spec. But, Edwin is right -- he can't post to that list. So, this is the only forum available to him. > With an ActiveX proposal, one of the core issues will affect many of us: > assigning data types. This is not a trivial issue in a typeless > 4GL, so it > will take some thought (although ToolBook's sybtax provides a useful > starting point). > Sounds like you've alredy given this some thought;-) best, Chipp _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
