AntC
Gábor Lehel
writes: ...
... My main complaint against DORF is that having to write fieldLabel declarations for every field you want to use is onerous. If that could be solved, I don't think there are any others. (But even if it can't be, I still prefer DORF.)
Thank you Gábor, I understand that 'complaint'.
I have been trying to keep the design 'clean': either the module is totally DORF, or it's totally H98.
... There have been several suggestions amongst the threads to mix H98-style fields with DORF-style records (or perhaps I mean vice-versa!): * We'd need to change the record decl syntax to 'flag' DORF fields (somehow). ... There's one difficulty I can see: ...
Suggestions please!
Wow! well thank you for all that hard thought going into my question. I've put up a tweak to the proposal as Option Three: "Mixed In-situ and Declared ORF". This does _not_ re-introduce H98 style fields, but does simulate them in a way that fits better with DORF. Do I dub this MIDORF? How will the cat with the hariballs pronounce it ;-)? [Oh, and sorry Isaac: the word count on the wiki has gone up some more.] AntC