On Fri, 30 May 1997, Jacek M. Holeczek wrote: > > > What is meant by 'all objects' in this case? > Correct me, if I'm wrong. It typically means 'all objects that have a > name' ( and a title ), that means all objects derived from TNamed. That is true in theory but (as I finally found out) not all objects derived from TNamed are initialized with a name! TText for example has no constructor with a name option but you can use the SetName/SetObject method and this works! > I have met this problem, too ( my private opinion follows ). > All root related objects could be divided into two groups. One group > containing all NAMED objects and the other one containing ANONYMOUS > objects ( that is NOT derived from TNamed ). Unfortunately ( and that's my > private opinion ) quite a lot of important classes, existing in root > framework, appear ONLY in the ANONYMOUS group. I would like to propose, > that ALL classes ( o.k. almost all ) exist in two "versions" one without Why two versions? Why would you want an object without a name (if you can leave it empty)? > and one with name/title ( the problem here is, that only NAMED objects > can be "found" by root when scanning subdirectories, for example ). Why ? [snip] > I would also like to propose another extension. It would be nice if root > files could keep ascii files ( also compressed ), for example with c++ > macros used to analyze/display other objects in the same root file ( or > maybe with some calibration parameters ). That's a nice idea! The interpreter makes it possible to have 'real' persistent objects with code, not only data. Sounds like the old days of lisp and smaltalk interpreters :-) Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 04 2000 - 00:26:19 MET