Well, not really. While I mostly agree with your previous statement that
RBScript is only limited by your imagination, and I pointed out that you
could develop object tables and dispatching mechanisms, etc, on your own,
there are limits to what you can do in terms of making your API nice and
clean, which was the other part of the discussion.
You can't really provide your users with a nice object-oriented syntax if
all you have are Print() and Input(). When RBScript first came out, it
didn't even have classes. Now with classes and a single context object, you
have pretty much all you need to build a nice API.
But, that nice API will be calling some not-quite-so-nice hacks in the
internals of your RBScript subclass. And it means you have to prepend all of
your set-up (all the class definitions, etc) to every script that the user
writes. Extensions like context classes or multiple context objects would
reduce the level of hacking, prepending, and so on that is necessary.
Which is all I was trying to say...
-Walter
-----Original Message-----
All that would be very cool, of course, but I don't think it would make
anything possible that isn't possible now. In fact, when RBScript was first
introduced, all it has was Print() and Input() and you could still then do
everything you can do know with the context object. It's just more work :)
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|