Well, that is a good example of playing with dynamite!
Looks like there's an RbScript bug to fix here, since you shouldn't be
able
to get yourself into that kind of trouble in the first place.
May I suggest that we *should* be able to "get into that kind of trouble"?
Currently RBScript is crippled by being limited to a single context object
(which it really doesn't even understand as an object, but as a source of
generic methods). A lot of interesting applications for RBScript become
cumbersome or impossible to implement because data and functionality quickly
become too complex for one context object. Passing instances across the
boundry at least helps with complex data. It still doesn't help with the
management of complex functionality. "Fixing" that "bug" would just annoy
those of us who need it, and force us into some cumbersome solution like
instance -> XML -> cross boundry with string -> XML -> instance.
Ideally RBScript should be able to take a list of types (classes and
interfaces) that it binds into its context and fully understands. That would
greatly enhance the RBScript object and would, IMHO, elevate it to being a
major RB advantage over other IDE's.
Daniel L. Taylor
Owner, Taylor Design
Computer Consulting & Software Development
help at taylor-design dot com
www.taylor-design.com
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|