🚀 go-pugleaf

[menu template handling code...]
>Of course, once the chunk has been defined, someone's got to
>write the SWIs to handle it... <shuffles feet and looks around
>hopefully>

Well, time permitting (i.e. not before March...) I'm willing...

>As to the Glass relocatable module (I'm liking this idea more and
>more) I should point out that the module will be PD, i.e. anyone
>can do what the hell they like with it.

Please don't do this. It's asking for trouble. Make it freeware,
so that you still retain some kind of revisiob control. Just look
what happened when Acorn let people hack and release their template
editor... in fact, Acorn didn't even let that happen, so beware!

>More importantly,  the *complete* source for the module will be
>Freeware, i.e. freely distributable but if you want to use the code
>in your own programs (as opposed to just being a SWI client) you have
>to get permission of the author (via the moderator i.e. me).

Um... I feel the source should be available only in a different form,
i.e. the module should be available, and the source code for the
contained functions (though not necessarily the whole module) should
be available in C/Assembler/BASIC if people want standalone code...

However, if the main thing is in an RM, you should encourage people
to use it as a shared resource rather than including the source code
directly into their own programs.

The main reason I believe the source code should be available is so that
  a) We can see what is going on in the module,
  b) We can alter it to do what we want, and send improvements back to
     you to possibly improve the next generation of the module...

>The reason the source will be available is because it's very useful when
>tracking down bugs or determining just *exactly* what a function does
>when the documentation is less than clear (as I found with DeskLib
>- this is supposed to be a compliment, Jason!).

;-) Well, I freely admit that DeskLib contains bugs. I had to leave
something up to the reader to solve, or they'd get bored ;-)

>Also, I think I'll back down on icon-decoding at run-time
 ...
>Of course, it's up to the programmer whether they use
>it or use constants...

...but of course, you'll encourage them to use it, as it
allows users more freedom with respect to altering the program
interface without having to re-compile the application to make
it work!

-- 
themasterofthearcanejwil1@cs.aukuni.ac.nzthismessagewassentonrecycledelectrons