"The other solution you're proposing is to cripple all the other languages down to the level of your preferred language. That would irritate everyone else, so that's even more of a no-go."
Personally, I would welcome this.
Is it possible that we settle for a no compromise implementation of one language, rather than multiple languages supported with caveats?
Andre
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Halfdan Ingvarsson
Sent: March 22, 2007 6:02 PM
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: RE: How do people deal with "Elements"-like arrays in JScript?
No-one's flaming you, guy. Either you've just got your sensitivity knob turned all the way to eleven, or your flame retardant suit is already on fire. If we were really flaming you, we'd be calling you an asshole, you bastard ;-)
Anyhoo. What you're asking is that we fix it by adding something to the language to handle this automatically. It's already been explained that this isn't technically possible. I'm sorry, that's the truth and there's nothing else to it. The JScript implementation is hidden behind the ActiveScripting interface which doesn't expose the internal JScript array to us. So no go there. With Python we've been able to fix some things by encoding the data in a certain way, but JScript is completely closed to us. It's like dealing with the government. We simply don't have access to the right forms (or hookers and blow, depending on the government).
The other solution you're proposing is to cripple all the other languages down to the level of your preferred language. That would irritate everyone else, so that's even more of a no-go.
But what it really boils down to is: What's wrong with Python?
- ½
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Bernard Lebel
Sent: 22-Mar-07 17:41
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: Re: How do people deal with "Elements"-like arrays in JScript?
Not the wrong side of the bed. Just baffled at something that is
fundamentally wrong and probably tickled at being flamed for
expressing it. You guys get bombarded all the time for feature X not
there, feature Y buggy, and so on. So why is it so wrong to do the
same about the SDK?
I'm not asking for a "fix", I'm asking for Softimage to get hands
dirty and make things consistent. Basically, I'm asking for Softimage
to be creative, just like it happened countless times. So stop telling
me I'm wrong. I'm not wrong by asking for consistency and uniformity.
If I can repackage the flat array into a multi-dimensional one, then
surely someone at Softimage can do it, right? And if it's absolutely
realistically technically impossible to work around it in any humanly
conceivable way and the only solution is to leave it flat, fine, I can
accept that. But then make it flat for every languages so it's handled
the same way in all languages. I really don't see what any good it
will do for anyone to have API features barely supported in some
languages and fully in others.
On 3/22/07, Halfdan Ingvarsson <hingvars(at)softimage.com> wrote:
As for asking Softimage to fix it: JScript doesn't have mechanisms to automatically handle things like this. Simple as that. They aren't there. We can't do anything about it. It's a closed box.
