Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Ronald Bourret <email@example.com>
- To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:46:40 +0100
David Megginson wrote:
> Michael.Kay@icl.com writes:
> > Perhaps a setOption(option, flag) interface would be more extensible.
> I could live with this, but only if the options were namespace
> qualified, i.e.
> [examples snipped]
> Do people like this? I was almost afraid to suggest it...
I prefer this. Once you start down the options path, there's no telling
where it will end, even if you have a very big stick for fighting off all
the options people want. set/getOption at least has the virtue of being
forward-compatible -- on any option it doesn't recognize, setOption fails
and getOption returns false. Also, are all options true/false? If not,
the option value should be Object, not Boolean.
-- Ron Bourret
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)