james tittle wrote:
On Feb 2, 2005, at 3:46 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
just one remark: the ordering of the context-name and the priority should be arbitrary: eg: [gemhead 10 offscreen] [gemhead blur] (==[gemhead 50 blur]) [gemhead bibs 32] ...
...no problem there, but I was thinking it'd be easier for backwards compatibility if we kept an ordering of priority then context name: if we can manage backwards compat. with arbitrary ordering, even better!
i don't think that it will be problematic with respect to backward compatibility (which is an absolute _must_)
but what, if we want different priorities for different contexts ?
(this is going to be very complicated, but once we are through it we might gain world dominance)
mfg.asd.r IOhannes