me vs. this?

[Charles Hartman]

Yes, Cubist pointed this out too, and I've been mulling it over, and  
of course you're right. There's a logical "this" group, field, etc.,  
when one is selected, clicked . . . But fleeting states aren't a good  
lexical basis for programming languages . . . "Dynamic" is good, but.

Charles


On Aug 5, 2005, at 7:53 PM, Jeanne A. E. DeVoto wrote:

> At 11:20 AM -0400 8/5/2005, Charles Hartman wrote:
>
>> Well, I don't know. Now that it's pointed out to me, I see in the  
>> Doc under 'this' only mentions of 'this card' and 'this  
>> stack' . . . It seems a little counterintuitive, though, doesn't  
>> it? to have an apparent "plain English" command with what feels  
>> like an arbitrary limitation on its reference? Why shouldn't "this  
>> X" refer to whichever X is the "current" one of its kind (group,  
>> button, script . . .)?
>>
>
> Well, the current stack is the one that's open and frontmost, and  
> the current card is the one that's visible. But there's not really  
> an analog for a group, button, etc., because you can have more than  
> one of those available in the current context - you might have  
> several groups on the current card, for instance, and no one of  
> them is "current" in the same way.
> -- 
> jeanne a. e. devoto ~ revolution at jaedworks.com
> http://www.jaedworks.com
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>