Re: [Webmacro-devel] Function refactor

[Eric B. R. <eb...@tc...>]

On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 09:13  PM, Brian Goetz wrote:

>
>> By "local functions", you mean local to a Context, right?  I'd like to
>> see this stay around.  The advantages of being able to add my own
>> functions w/o editing wm.properties are many, imho.
>
> I like the idea of being able to put Function objects in the context, 
> but I don't particularly like how it works now.
>
> Instead of putFunction(), I like better the idea of putting Function 
> objects into the context like variables:
>
>   put("cos", new FunctionWrapper(mathObject, "cosine"));

This might be too much to ask, but you need 3 things for the Function, 
right?  a name, an object (or Class instance), and a method name (or 
java.lang.reflect.Method instance maybe?).  Couldn't we have

	put (String variableName, Object obj, String methodName);
                       or
          put (String variableName, Object obj, java.lang.relfect.Method 
method);

Why should the user be forced to create a new FunctionWrapper?

I realize I'm probably contradicting myself based on things I've said 
previously, but this wouldn't be magical so much as it would be a 
convenience.

>
> and then, instead of having Context look up in this special function 
> map, just look up the name in the context.  I don't really like that 
> there are so many namespaces.
>
> Then, global functions can work that way too -- they get faulted into 
> the context the first time you use them.  The result is a flat 
> namespace for variables, tools, functions, etc, and a general purpose 
> "stuff-on-fault" mechanism for global hoosits.
>
> Or is that too much magic?

It uses magic to cleanup Context.java... Magic for good, not for evil.

eric