|
Title: Plugin names Post by: sciurius on February 19, 2016, 07:38:19 AM (I tried to add a comment to the blog, but that didn't seem to work)
What problems do you expect from calling plugins by their names (i.e. without @ prefix)? One of the charms of plugins is that added functions look/behave like ordinary commands. Title: Re: Plugin names Post by: bvdp on February 19, 2016, 04:30:48 PM (I tried to add a comment to the blog, but that didn't seem to work) What problems do you expect from calling plugins by their names (i.e. without @ prefix)? One of the charms of plugins is that added functions look/behave like ordinary commands. Comments on the blog should work. I'll have to look at that! I have the plugins working and can happily report no problems. Once the plugin is written one just calls it by its name. The "@" forms part of the name. So, we could have a plugin create (silly example) a new command called @VOLUME and it gets called just like any other MMA command. Of course, what @VOLUME does is entirely up to the plugin code. Note that the @ is part of the name. Two reasons: it highlights the fact that this is in fact a plugin, not a native command; and it ensures that we're not overwriting the original command. This release is very close. I'm tied up with other stuff for a few days, but I think that very early next week I'll be able to put up a developer tarball. |