Re: solutions to scripting addition terminology confilicts (i.e. the osax namespace problem)
Re: solutions to scripting addition terminology confilicts (i.e. the osax namespace problem)
- Subject: Re: solutions to scripting addition terminology confilicts (i.e. the osax namespace problem)
- From: Simon Forster <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:36:58 +0000
On Monday, January 21, 2002, at 09:02 am, Neal A. Crocker wrote:
I propose three alternative solutions to the problem of scripting
addition terminology conflicts.
Which presupposes that scripting additions are a good thing.
By creating an AppleScript scripting addition as opposed to an
application, what do you gain? Scripting additions extend AppleScript's
language which, from this naive users perspective, means that coercions
happen auto-magically so I don't need to use explicit tell blocks.
That's about it. Is this a good thing? I'd answer no.
1) There's only one global namespace so we start getting naming
conflicts if everything's written as a scripting addition.
2) Code becomes more obtuse as funky things are happening on the sly.
Look at the frequent postings we see where some scripting addition or
the other is performing an unseen coercion leading to unexpected
behaviour on different machines.
OK, with 1) we're in danger of starting a circular argument. So, let's
simply say that by reducing our reliance on scripting additions and
using faceless background applications instead, the problems you're
trying to address go away all by themselves!
Death to scripting additions! Long live faceless background applications!
Simon Forster
________________________________________________
LDML Ltd, 4/5 Hazlitt Mews, London, W14 0JZ, UK
<tel int="+44 20 7602 9370" uk="020 7602 9370">
<fax int="+44 20 7371 6662" uk="020 7371 6662">
<
mailto:email@hidden>
________________________________________________