> > > > Hopefully we will be able to find a compromise that lets Jarl keep > > creative freedom over the goals of GMS, and lets Loci take care of > > its objectives. I think we are too close in design goals to not try > > working together for a better overall final product. > > Once again, there are many, many, many ideas we have that came from years of > thought and discussion. I don't want to throw any of that out but see how we > can implement them in a Loci/GMS system. Ofcourse, the result should only get better out of a merge. > We need to have some serious > discussions with Jarl, Jean-Marc and Dominic about all of these ideas. > As I mentioned earlier: the first subject of discussion should be the differance between the classes\objects 'filosophy' of both systems.. I think your choose to implement different types based upon functionality isn't the way it should be done. I'm supporting the 'one global do-everything object". I'm very curious why Loci classes are implemented the way they are... bye, jarl