The paradigm of containers and self-referenced names

[Mikey]

> We need a word for the destination of "put" and "add".  I think
> "reference" can work.  In other languages folks use LHS, but since the
> LHS is on the right side in these examples, that can be confusing.
generally this is referred to as the "result"

> One of the problems with the paradigm is that the meaning of a
> statement depends not on the statement itself, or the statement and
> declarations of components, but on its context.
Ever hear of C?  Howabout Java?  In those languages the meaning of a
statement can vary with the types of the arguments, the number of
arguments, or in C's case, where you are in a program.  It's not a
flaw, it's part of the Tao.  The paradigm carries with it certain
rights and responsibilities, which one needs to understand.  That
doesn't make it wrong, any more than polymorphism,
multiple-inheritence, or the ability to walk right off the end of an
array in C is wrong.  It just is.

>     If a name in an undeclared value or reference context
>     is used anywhere in the handler as a reference it is
>     a container with an initial value of empty, otherwise
>     it is a self-referencing name or string constant.
Actually it would be a string literal, but whatever.
<snip/>
> What good is a paradigm when people don't know how it works?
Thus the Tao blog, and the documentation project.  I think that most
of us that have used HC or SuperCard or MetaCard have a pretty good
grasp of the behavior.

> As it is, it is broken.
I just tend to disagree on this point.  It appears to work as I would
expect it to, unless I haven't been paying attention to this thread.

<snip/> I'm going to leave the rest alone.  It's philosophy at this
point and should be continued in the request blog.

--
On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth
On the second day, God created the oceans.
On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours,
   and did a little diving.
And God said, "This is good."