> > Anyhow, I'm surprised by the difference> > between the proposal and my expectations.> > I suspect others may have misread this one> > as well. At least worth talking about> > again.> Sure. Hope I've managed to answer your concerns.
Well, you've made it clear we come at this with very different use
cases in mind. Not too surprising I guess, given the large number
of uses and abuses that [unknown] has had a part in.
You want to rewrite commands on the fly. I see [unknown] and
immediately jump to "auto-loader" and want to make the auto-loader
machinery simpler and more reliable.
I haven't thought enough about it, but your examples feel to me more
like use cases for the enhanced execution traces I believe Jeff Hobbs
has hinted about proposing. These would be execution traces
that could have command rewrite capability, which they lack now.
At the very least, those execution trace enhancements would need to
interact with the [namespace unknown] dispatch, so perhaps they need
to be considered together?
Sorry about erecting obstacles; I really thought you were proposing
| Don Porter Mathematical and Computational Sciences Division |
| dona...@nist.gov Information Technology Laboratory |
| http://math.nist.gov/~DPorter/ NIST |
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
Tcl-Core mailing list