Dick- Thursday, January 5, 2006, 4:23:17 PM, you wrote:
> With this technique, you can overload any handler without repeatedly > removing and inserting scripts into front or back. I think. I see you're > satisfied with your current approach, but do you see a problem with this > technique? For my current conundrum, yes. I need not just polymorphism here, but I also have the case where functions in the library stack need to call a function in the mainstack. So there are (at least) three stacks involved: a mainstack, a second stack loaded from disk on the fly which needs to go in front of the mainstack objects, and a library substack of the mainstack. In order to maintain object separation (the library substack doesn't know or care about fields in the mainstack, data logging file particulars, etc) I now have the mainstack and substack as peer library stacks ("start using") and the stack that gets loaded from disk as a frontstack ("insert into"). The stack loaded on the fly needs, of course, to call functions in both the mainstack and substack; functions in the substack need to use the overloaded functions in the frontstack; and both need functions in the substack. If I were just dealing with overloading functions then your approach of value() or send would work, and that's what I was doing before life got complicated. -- -Mark Wieder [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution