On Nov 14, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Someone could write their own message box object and make it do
whatever they want. Then you have both: a new interface and
backwards compatibility. The message box could just be a GUI
object like any other, there is nothing inherently unique about it.It wouldn't even need to be a "GUI" object. just make it an
objectbox class named [m]. Then "$1" (etc) becomes the same as in
other objectboxes, and then another syntax can be used to mean
message arguments. Except that if it's not a GUI object, then it's
not clickable, and stuff.User-wise, there _is_ something inherently unique to the messagebox,
but it happens to be exactly the difference that we'd like to
eliminate.
Yeah, for clarification, there is nothing inherently unique in the
implementation. Someone could make their own message box. I'd like
to see that happen.
.hc
"Making boring techno music is really easy with modern tools," he
says, "but with live coding, boring techno is much harder." - Chris
McCormick