Re: More on Actions, routes and builders in general

Bram Moolenaar wrote:

> I don't know if any of the other extra features of using
> define_action() is desired.  If that is so, then defining
> get_out_types() yourself would work.
> 

Well, it worked as it should before, I think, but I believe that at some 
time it might be necessary to be able to support more intypes (resource 
files are a good guess) and I had the understanding that that would be 
best through using define_action()?

And where should I define get_out_types() myself?

Anyway, I think that it is a bug the way it is now (since the same 
actions worked when using :action). The solution (IMO) would be to check 
the types of the primary action with the types requested by the recipe 
and then make sure that the action that do the real work supports at 
least the same types as the primary action.

Lars Ivar Igesund



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by The 2004 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Learn from the experts at JavaOne(SM), Sun's Worldwide Java Developer
Conference, June 28 - July 1 at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, CA
REGISTER AND SAVE! http://java.sun.com/javaone/sf Priority Code NWMGYKND