Re: [sc-dev] [approve] Function-bund

[ronald kuivila <rkuivila@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Scott,

This seems like bloat to me.  The problem is that you end up with  
more and more inconsistent method names
(sendBundle has a different meaning as a selector for Server,  
makeBundle is closer but still not the same).

To save typing, how about defining a class S that simply redirects  
methods to Server.default?
This would save typing and work anywhere (unlike the current  
convention of using the interpreter variable s).

RJK


On Dec 29, 2005, at 7:14 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:

> Yeah, but trying to save typing, which is the basic point after  
> all. :-)
>
> Other suggestions for a name?
>
> S.
>
> On 30 Dec 2005, at 00:01, James Harkins wrote:
>
> > Maybe just a naming thing. .bund implies that you will get a  
> > bundle back.
> >
> > .sendBundle might be better:
> >
> > {
> >   b = Buffer.alloc(...);
> >   .. .. ..
> > }.sendBundle;
> >
> > hjh
> >
> > On 12/29/05, Scott Wilson <sdwilson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Well, it's not worth it then to me anyway, as I almost never do  
> > > that,
> > > and thus don't see the point of a shortcut. For cases where you want
> > > the bundle back I'd be happy with makeBundle.
> >
> > --
> > James Harkins /// dewdrop world
> > jamshark70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.dewdrop-world.net
> >
> > "Come said the Muse,
> > Sing me a song no poet has yet chanted,
> > Sing me the universal."  -- Whitman
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sc-dev mailing list
> > sc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/sc-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> sc-dev mailing list
> sc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/sc-dev