Subject:
|
Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:25:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1445 times
|
| |
|
|
I don't think of any new meta-commands as polution. Possibly over-population?
I've got mixed feelings about the LTrax solution.
It is very hard to know which meta-commands will be usable across many
applications. Certainly the original LDraw meta-commands are usable across
many LDraw compatible tools, but LPub supports any of the MLCad defined
meta-commands that are meaningful.
I created the SYNTH meta-command for flexible-part synthesis. I intentionally
didn't name the meta-command LSYNTH, because I wasn't sure what the actual
application name was going to be. Besides someone might come in and displace
LSynth with a better synthesizer. SYNTH seemed to reflect the intent of the
meta-command without it being bound to a specific application.
It is hard to know what the right philosophy is here. MLCAD has gone both ways
on this one.
Kevin
In lugnet.cad.dev, Dan Boger writes:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 06:49:18PM +0000, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev, Kevin Clague writes:
> >
> > > Would the authors of LDraw compatible applications please list the
> > > meta-commands they have created? I will compile the list of applications • and
> > > the meta-commands they define.
> >
> > One thing that I think would help reduce namespace pollution is if everyone
> > did what LTrax did... prefix the command with the app name for uniqueness.
> > Not a perfect solution, of course.
>
> except that if you do that, it discourages cross-tool commands. If I'm
> writing FooCAD, and I want to implement one of the LTrax commands,
> should I make a new command '0 FooCad xxxx'? should I secretly support
> the '0 LTrax xxxx'?
>
> I'm not sure what the best answer here is. Maybe aliasing (internally)
> '0 LTrax xxxx' to '0 FooCAD xxxx' does make sense?
>
> Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
| (...) Namespace Pollution is a technical term. It's not meant as an insult, mind you. It refers to a common phenomena in programming, in which things become hard to use because of scope problems, because things named in global scope interfere with (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
| (...) except that if you do that, it discourages cross-tool commands. If I'm writing FooCAD, and I want to implement one of the LTrax commands, should I make a new command '0 FooCad xxxx'? should I secretly support the '0 LTrax xxxx'? I'm not sure (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
154 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
