Commands with the same name

• To: bss@jupiter.risc.rockwell.com, clim@BBN.COM
• Subject: Commands with the same name
• From: Scott McKay <SWM@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com>
• Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:26-0400
• In-Reply-To: <9209021738.AA08545@jupiter.risc.rockwell.com>

    Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:38 EDT
    From: Bruce Seely <bss@jupiter.risc.rockwell.com>

    In CLIM 0.9 it was possible to have different commands that had the same name
    in different command tables, but not in 2.0 alpha (I don't know about 
    1.0/1.1).  Were commands were implemented as methods in 0.9, but as functions
    now?  Is there a reason for the change?  I liked using the same name for 
    commands that did the same things in different frames.

Some of us didn't think that implementing commands as methods bought you
very much, and in some cases actually makes things more difficult rather
than less difficult.  I myself take this position, but am certainly
sympathetic with the other point of view.

You could separate your applications into different packages, too.


0,,

• Commands with the same name
• From: Bruce Seely <bss@jupiter.risc.rockwell.com>

• Prev: Commands with the same name
• Next: Re: Accept with '(or...) types that have accept methods
• Index: CLIM Mailing list (1-Sep-92 to 31-Dec-92)
• Thread: CLIM Mailing list Index (1-Sep-92 to 31-Dec-92)