Re: Messages again

[John Darrington]

On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 09:35:06PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
     John Darrington <address@hidden> writes:
     
     > The difference is  I suppose, in the way we've approached the problem.
     > In my proposal, I've put the burden on the UI programmer to predeclare
     > the actions of a block of code; "I'm about to enter something into a
     > cell".  Whereas perhaps you can think of a better way to determine that
     > an error was provoked by an attempt to enter data into a cell for
     > which it was not appropriate.
     
     I'm not sure.  Based on this paragraph, your contexts sound
     similar to mine: both describe the *context* in which an error
     occurred.  But your original description (quoted below) said a
     message context is a "message reporting policy" that says how a
     message should be *displayed*.  To me, those seem that they
     should be separate.

Well yes, the context and the policy are seperate animals.  What I
meant to say was that each context may (must?) have a policy
associated with it.  

     Maybe (likely) I don't understand your description.

Or (more likely) I hadn't thought it through sufficiently. For example
there's no reason why the same policy couldn't be associated with more
than one context.

J'

-- 
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285  A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://pgp.mit.edu or any PGP keyserver for public key.

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature