Crazy script-only stack question

[Geoff Canyon]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 1:49 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode <
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> On 2018-01-22 21:20, Geoff Canyon via use-livecode wrote:
>
>> Is there any reason script-only stacks had to be implemented in the
>> engine?
>>
>
> Yes - otherwise direct stack references or 'stackfiles' indirected
> references wouldn't work. You'd need a binary 'launcher' stack for each
> script, which would then be a bane for version control (which would have
> defeated their purpose).
>

​Yep, I get that I was proposing a hack, non-100% solution.​ Hence "Crazy"
in the subject line ;-)


>
> In terms of behaviors, then they are another example of script objects -
> indeed, the object the script is attached to has little to do with any
> semantics of behaviors (although we did add 'this me', to allow resource
> resolution relative to the behavior object - I'd suggest not using it for
> anything else other than that ;)).
>

​This actually raises another point (and I'm sure this is a discussion that
happened without me several years ago, but as long as we're here) is there
a reason to use "this me" which seems terribly awkward, over "the behavior
of me" which is to my ear far more straightforward​ (it didn't require any
additional code or syntax) if a bit more verbose?


> I'd propose the following:
>
>   script <script-name> with behavior <behavior-name>
>
> Where <behavior-name> is resolved as a stack reference.
>

​Sure, that sounds perfect​.

gc