Seems like there's a fair bit of paranoia abroad in this land. Just making dot syntax an alternative -- or even implementing OO syntax using it -- doesn't have to corrupt the underlying Transcript syntax *except* for those people who choose an OO approach to their Rev projects. Hand-wringing about all the books (how many are there again?) and other documents suddenly moving away from the elegant xTalk syntax to dot notation for everything isn't necessary or appropriate because that's hardly inevitable.
The Lingo case study doesn't work here because Macromedia essentially made an internal decision to move away from its proprietary syntax (which was quite xTalk-like) to dot notation. I was keenly aware of that decision-making process as a consultant to the company and I can tell you they were under a lot of pressure from *customers* to make that switch. There are a lot of linguistic-design and other technical reasons affecting language performance to consider the dot notation when you get into the dynamic allocation of instance methods and properties. Would you rather have: (a) No object orientation (b) OO with the current syntax with poor performance or (c) OO with dot notation and acceptable performance I'm not saying those are the *only* choices but they're the big ones. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author http://www.shafermedia.com Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought" >From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html _______________________________________________ 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