"...for neither" - really?

[Monte Goulding]

Sounds good to me Richard although Jacque did get a bee in her bonnet when we started adding adjectives to the language last year (globally, recursively) ;-)

Personally I think all IO should at least have an asynchronous option similar to sockets so there should be a `with message` option on everything. Actually I think just about everything that blocks should have that option because blocking is just plain bad for everyone but the absolute newbie.

Cheers

Monte


On 26 Jul 2014, at 5:34 am, Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com> wrote:

> Monte recently helped me with a shell task by reminding me that I can use this for asynchronously calling another process:
> 
>  open tSomeProcessCommand for neither
> 
> Useful enough, but the syntax kinda bugs me.
> 
> When you read the full Dictionary entry for "open process" it kinda makes sense, but it feels a bit silly to type it.
> 
> Anyone here think it's worth the dev team's time to propose "asynchronously" as a synonym for "for neither"?
> 
> Better still, anyone here know their way around the code base and care enough about this sort of nit-picking to add that?
> 
> Is it even worth thinking about?
> 
> -- 
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World Systems
> Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Ambassador at FourthWorld.com                http://www.FourthWorld.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

--
M E R Goulding 
Software development services
Bespoke application development for vertical markets

mergExt - There's an external for that!