Re: Converters
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:11 am
Right, the id is not needed.Josef Templ wrote: I also don't see any need for an id field within a Converter.
https://forum.blackboxframework.org/
Right, the id is not needed.Josef Templ wrote: I also don't see any need for an id field within a Converter.
The only slight problem I see with "PROCEDURE Unregister(c: Converter);" is that the converter 'c' may reside in the middle of the list and henceJosef Templ wrote:To me a simple and meaningful extension would be to add two procedures:
PROCEDURE RegisterEx(..., OUT c: Converter);
PROCEDURE Unregister(c: Converter);
where RegisterEx can be used for registering a temporarily used converter,
i.e. one that is subject to Unregister at a later time.
Such a case is typical when developing a new converter because
multiple edit-compile-load-register cycles can be involved.
Yes, one can "cut" the list at an arbitrary point or even reorder it.Josef Templ wrote:Changing next- to next* is a nice idea.
It gives a large amount of freedom for a minimal amount of change.
- Josef
It seems to be very simple feature. Should we change status to beta if we will include this issue in 1.7 ?Josef Templ wrote:Changing next- to next* is a nice idea.
It gives a large amount of freedom for a minimal amount of change.
Do you mean step back from release candidate to beta?Ivan Denisov wrote:It seems to be very simple feature. Should we change status to beta if we will include this issue in 1.7 ?Josef Templ wrote:Changing next- to next* is a nice idea.
It gives a large amount of freedom for a minimal amount of change.
So let's also leave it for 1.8 unstable.DGDanforth wrote:Do you mean step back from release candidate to beta?
We can just try it as unstable and see how people use and like it.