Subject:
|
Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:26:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1346 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Dan Boger wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 06:49:18PM +0000, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > 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 agree with Larry -- support it publically. Recognize '0 LTrax xxxx' as
the primary syntax for the command.
Especially, let the author of the original command know that you are
implement their command. Hopefully, that will give them cause to solidify
the syntax, or at least pause before they change it arbitrarily.
> I'm not sure what the best answer here is. Maybe aliasing (internally)
> '0 LTrax xxxx' to '0 FooCAD xxxx' does make sense?
If that works inside your program, that would be fine.
/^\s*0\s+(LTrax|FooCAD)\s+xxxx\s/i isn't *that* hard to write.
Steve
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
