Judy Perry wrote:
>> FWIW, I've been advised by Scott Raney not to rely on dot notation >> in my own handler names, as future versions of the engine may >> include OOPS extensions which may affect existing uses of dot >> notation in unpredictable ways. > > I thought that Kevin had assured us that Rev wasn't going to > "go over" to using dot syntax. No? Am I remembering incorrectly?
I can't speak for Kevin, but I'll venture a guess of what Scott was thinking, and maybe he or Tuv or Kevin can expand on/correct this:
The whole crew seems pretty committed to retaining the flavor of the language. The question is not whether they alter existing ways of doing things, but rather how they might enable wholly new paradigms like OOPS within an otherwise procedural framework.
Outside of OOPS dot notation has little practical value, but as OOPS-like extensions get added to the language it might make sense to consider it.
Scott's comment on this wasn't a commitment to any specific implementation, merely an acknowledgement that OOPS has been a consideration for some time (see the bottom of <http://www.metacard.com/pi5.html>), and when it moves into the active design stage it may make good sense to adopt some of the more common OOPS conventions for working with such new constructs.
-- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___________________________________________________ Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
