Library of file processing functions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Library of file processing functions

Marielle Lange-3
http://codes.widged.com/?q=node/658

Humble attempt at writing a library in a way that allows for automatic extraction of the doc as
well as for sharing in the public domain (example of use provided for each function). Any
dependency is clearly specified. Systematic conventions used (functions in the plural form
return an array).

Yes, the use of a "." in the function names is debatable. For the moment, it is an easy solution
to prevent conflict swithout using prefixing in "generic" functions.

Comments welcome on the form and guidelines proposed,
Marielle







 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/revInterop/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [hidden email]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Library of file processing functions

Richard Gaskin
Marielle Lange wrote:
> Yes, the use of a "." in the function names is debatable.

The only downside I can see is that if/when Rev adds OOP then that
notation will probably take on a different meaning.  Scott Raney used to
advise me against using dot notation in handler names for that reason.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Managing Editor, revJournal
  _______________________________________________________
  Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/revInterop/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [hidden email]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Library of file processing functions

mwieder
Richard-

Friday, April 7, 2006, 11:56:56 AM, you wrote:

> Marielle Lange wrote:
>> Yes, the use of a "." in the function names is debatable.

> The only downside I can see is that if/when Rev adds OOP then that
> notation will probably take on a different meaning.  Scott Raney used to
> advise me against using dot notation in handler names for that reason.

I asked Mark Waddingham about this last year in Monterey and he
dismissed the idea of staying away from dot notation.

--
-Mark Wieder
 [hidden email]



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/revInterop/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [hidden email]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftware@gmail.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Library of file processing functions

Richard Gaskin
Mark Wieder wrote:

> Richard-
>
> Friday, April 7, 2006, 11:56:56 AM, you wrote:
>
>> Marielle Lange wrote:
>>> Yes, the use of a "." in the function names is debatable.
>
>> The only downside I can see is that if/when Rev adds OOP then that
>> notation will probably take on a different meaning.  Scott Raney used to
>> advise me against using dot notation in handler names for that reason.
>
> I asked Mark Waddingham about this last year in Monterey and he
> dismissed the idea of staying away from dot notation.

For him later or for us now?

If the latter, he's in a better position to know than I am.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Managing Editor, revJournal
  _______________________________________________________
  Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/revInterop/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [hidden email]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/