From: Mark H. <ma...@us...> - 2000-10-31 10:46:38
|
Mo DeJong <md...@cy...> wrote: > Was this not how it worked back in the 1.X-2.X days? > I seem to remember something about that being > taken out for Itcl 3.0. Yes, that's right. "info" was an ensemble and these options were added to the ensemble. > The itcl::code command seems to predate the namespace > command, it is currently just a wrapper. But, one could > argue that it easier than using the namespace command directly. It was originally written as an easier alternative to namespace and list. It's easier to explain -command [code ...] than -command [list ...]. > There is simply no way to win a "backward compatibility" > argument. It takes time to move up to a new version, > there is just no doubt about it. After a number of > months, we are only now removing the last of the > itcl_class commands from Source-Navigator. What > about those interfaces? Are we going to support > them too? My idea: Not in the core. Provide a separate package for those commands and the ::itcl namespace fiddling. Anyone who needs these commands will by definition be comfortable dealing with installing packages themselves. I hope that by limiting the scope of this work as much as possible we reduce (1) the compatibility impact on current itcl users, and (2) the amount of work we are creating for ourselves. I'm sympathetic to improving itcl, but I think this is not the best time to make any changes. > I think folks that can not upgrade will just have > to not upgrade, problem solved. Why can't they > just continue to use the old versions of Itcl? Minimizing "inflection points" (where people can reconsider their use of Tcl -- "let's toss this old stuff and use an EJB server...") is always a good idea... keeping people on a recent version helps to do this, and it avoids the "antique legacy code" taint. Mark -- The TclCore mailing list is sponsored by Ajuba Solutions To unsubscribe: email tcl...@aj... with the word UNSUBSCRIBE as the subject. |