Dan, Richard, et al:
Just making dot syntax an alternative -- or even implementing OO syntax using it -- doesn't have to corrupt the underlying Transcript syntax *except* for those people who choose an OO approach to their Rev projects.
So dot syntax is optional...UNLESS people choose to use the OO constructs we are hoping for in some future release?
So the option is "use or don't use objects", not "use or don't use dot syntax".
How about RRLtd implements OO in an XTalk manner first, and then we talk about a dot notation option? At least then it would be a _real_ option.
Rob Cozens CCW, Serendipity Software Company "And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three; Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee." from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631) _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
