coding style rationale
Hi riveters I was looking at the DIO and SESSION packages code more closely than I did before and found out that there are some methods in dio.tcl where Tcl keywords like 'list' and 'array' are replaced and reused as names for simbolic entities like a specific list or array. Reading such code is puzzling but I'm unwilling to think that the fellows who wrote it did it without a good and specific reason. Just out of curiosity someone would explain why it was done this way? thank you -- -- Massimo Manghi -- Dipartimento di Biologia Evolutiva e Funzionale -- Università degli Studi di Parma -- Parco Area delle Scienze 11A - 43100 Parma - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: coding style rationale
Do you mean the 'list' and 'array' methods? They were named that way for two reasons. One, to jive with what ns_tcl was already doing, and two to jive with what they do and what Tcl'er would expect them to do based on name. There was no scientific (or even good) reason other than that. 0-] Damon Massimo Manghi wrote: Hi riveters I was looking at the DIO and SESSION packages code more closely than I did before and found out that there are some methods in dio.tcl where Tcl keywords like 'list' and 'array' are replaced and reused as names for simbolic entities like a specific list or array. Reading such code is puzzling but I'm unwilling to think that the fellows who wrote it did it without a good and specific reason. Just out of curiosity someone would explain why it was done this way? thank you - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: coding style rationale
Damon Courtney wrote:
Do you mean the 'list' and 'array' methods? They were named that
way for two reasons. One, to jive with what ns_tcl was already doing,
and two to jive with what they do and what Tcl'er would expect them
to do based on name.
There was no scientific (or even good) reason other than that. 0-]
Damon
I didn't mean specifically the methods, in that case it does make
sense to call them this way. It became much clearer to me since I read
the word 'jive'
look at this method from dio.tcl (I hope I'm not messing up with the
indentation).
protected method table_check {list {tableVar myTable} {keyVar myKeyfield}} {
upvar 1 $tableVar $tableVar $keyVar $keyVar
set data(-table) $table
set data(-keyfield) $keyfield
::array set data $list
if {[lempty $data(-table)]} {
return -code error -table not specified in DIO object
}
if {[lempty $data(-keyfield)]} {
return -code error -keyfield not specified in DIO object
}
set $tableVar $data(-table)
set $keyVar $data(-keyfield)
}
the 'list' argument is not making anything that one would
expect from the tcl command *list*, it's *a list* placed
as a first argument in the method: as I saw it it made me
think where the hell the braces are?
--
-- Massimo Manghi
-- Dipartimento di Biologia Evolutiva e Funzionale
-- Università degli Studi di Parma
-- Parco Area delle Scienze 11A - 43100 Parma
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
