>Let me try once more to get the full magnitude of what I'm actually
>planning of allowing in an efficient interpreter across: Dynamic
>rewriting of the syntax at runtime.
>
>You put those commands I showed in a script somewhere. They add the
>specified syntax to the FreeScript language.
>
>You could have a system-wide syntax addition in the Home stack, of course.
Anthony,
scope is again a problem. Even if you define that command in an openStack
handler, where the scope is almost clear, this would then probably modify
the behaviour of all other stacks. An invitation for FreeCard virus writers
:-(
Furthermore, going to a stack with lockMessages will cause all sorts of
syntax errors since the commands have not been registered. I'm not sure
it'll turn out exactly like that, but I can imagine that when scripts are
interrupted we will get even worse errors than we used to get.
Also what happens with commands like "send 'xy' to card 2 of stack 'y'"?
If that used any commands that are declared on openStack we'd be in
trouble. I'd rather see the addition of another kind of object (like menus
in SuperCard, or components in MetaCard), in which you can declare new
syntax. This would be a bit more restricted but also a bit safer.
>Doubtfull. You can't (really) use a Unix box without a linker, because
>on Unix, you are given source code, not binaries for most everything
>(unless you happen to use RedHat 6.1/Inhel and trust whomever made the
>RPM)
But are we guaranteed to be running on a box with the same linker? Wouldn't
the user have the choice between three or four linkers (not to mention
different revisions)?
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
