Subject:
|
Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Mar 2003 20:11:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1411 times
|
| |
|
|
In thinking about this a bit more, I flashed on a quote from Yoda in one of the
Star Wars movies "Hard to see the future is"....
I've added some meta-commands to the name space that are certainly specific to
LPub and the creation of building instructions. I've also thought about
namespace pollution. I could see compressing many of these *new* meta-commands
under a single higher level meta-command, but I'd prefer to use something like
generic to the task like BI for "Building Instructions", than LPUB, which is a
specific Building Instruction tool. It seems less ego-centric. You never know
who might come along and create a better mouse trap.
I think that using higher level meta-commands that create name spaces for
higher level concepts is a good idea to restrict over-population (again,
pollution carries such negative connotations), but I'd like them to be specific
to a capability goal, rather than specific to an application that provides a
specific capability.
If James had put all of the meta-command he defined under the LDRAW
meta-command I just don't think it would look right to me.
Kevin
<snip>
>
> I think that, with a little investigation, each command might be
> identified as 'general purpose' or 'application specific.' I think
> that haveing the app-specific ones prefixed with the appname (or
> even 'APP {appname}') isn't such a bad idea.
>
> Also I think that having some sort of community discussion on the
> general purpose commands might be a good idea in order to also
> help keep the namespace polution to a minimum. But by using the
> 'APP {appname}' prefix app authors could add whatever they wanted
> while keeping the polution confinde to a small metacommand sandbox.
> If some app-specific command were found to be useful to more than
> one program, there isn't any reason it couldn't be 'promoted' to
> the general purpose level and have the prefix stripped.
>
> -Kyle
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
| (...) Ain't that the truth! (...) This is kinda what I was proposing. If you had known that the APP {appname} branch of the namespace was open for any developer to use as he saw fit, but that other commands needed more community buy in, you probably (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
| (...) I think that, with a little investigation, each command might be identified as 'general purpose' or 'application specific.' I think that haveing the app-specific ones prefixed with the appname (or even 'APP {appname}') isn't such a bad idea. (...) (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
|
|
|
|
