So in Transcript left assignment might be better stated using the
familiar syntax: set var to x
The get command becomes the shortcut equivelent of: set it to
So you see Jim, now I get it!
Or,,, get is a shortcut for "put the propX into it"... the set -
put difference still rears its head
If the get syntax is to be a shortcut for "put x into it", then "get
x" is really "put x" with an implied "into it". That would make
"get" and "put" equivalent. which they are not. Get implies
receiving or taking, while put implies sending away. That is why I
can only think of the get command as a left assignment --I'm going to
go over there and grab the value from the expression to my right.
Makes it more like a function call, or a handler. I guess some
clever programming could create the get command if it did not already
exist.
I have always been bothered by the left right reversal between
setting parameters (just another type of container), and putting
into variables. I have mistyped setting the parameter many times
using the form: put x into the parameter of y. The syntax is not
ambiguous as far as I can tell. Perhaps both set and put syntaxes
should be regularized to allow either, and relegate parameters to
the ordinary family of containers. At least allow the setting of
variables even if putting into parameters is kept exclusive.
Comments?
When phrased this way, the left - right assignment question
becomes one, not of ":=", "=>", etc. but rather........ Why can't
I "set a variable to x?" and why can't I "put something into a
property?" .. that's simple enough for even me to get ;-{)
Off the top of my head there are significant differences between
variables and properties: persistence (properties stay there when
you shut down), scope (you can access any property from anywhere
whereas variables must be explicitly defined as global and then are
available only if the stack is running and has assigned them a
value) and messaging (objects can respond to a change in their
properties (setProp & getProp)). Is that enough to justify a syntax
change for addressing them.... Hmmmm?
Don't forget, you can also put things into fields.
It may be that last item that is key.
"Set" sends a message to an object.... the one with the property...
and that object can react to that message appropriately with
setProp/getProp
"Put" doesn't send a message anywhere... well.. execpt for the fact
that the object responds to a "put the propX into var" anyway with
a "call" to getProp
So why couldn't an object respond to a "put var into the propX"
with the setProp structure... it could......
So maybe it doesn't matter? Am I coming around to a different
perspective?
Of course.. none of this has to anything to do with assignment
operators...
That's right, Transcript does not have any assignment "operators".
It only has assignment commands. Introducing an assignment
"operator" is inconsistent. There I said it. That leaves us with
the only reasonable option of a left assignment command. Set and put
are already defined in a a way that the compiler could translate them
to the appropriate low level codes. Messages would be sent when
accessing properties, and not for variables. If set must be the
purview of properties only, then we would need a different word, but
I can' t think of a good one off hand --nor a good reason to have one.
Dennis
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
