Crazy script-only stack question

[Geoff Canyon]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:42 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode <
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> On 2018-01-23 17:21, Geoff Canyon via use-livecode wrote:
>
>> ​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?
>>
>
> There's a longish thread on the engine forum about this...
>
> The 'behavior of me' works fine as long as you aren't using a chained
> behavior - in the latter case, it would only give you the behavior object
> directly attached to 'me' (i.e. the object the behavior's are acting on).
>

​Yeah, agreed, in this circumstance "the behavior of me" would be lacking.
​

>
> The need to actually get the object a behavior's script resides in is
> really quite a rare operation (the only reason I think it is useful at all
> in the context of script-only stacks being used for behaviors is for
> resolving paths to resources relative to the behavior script file) so in
> the end I plumped for something simple to add which wasn't going to cause
> any difficulties in implementation or potential ambiguities - its
> strangeness helps reinforce the fact 'are you sure you need to do this' as
> well :)
>

​Class variables are a fairly defined thing in the OO world, and this seems
equivalent to those.
​

>
> In actual fact, I wonder whether it is really needed at all for behaviors
> expressed as script only stacks - you can use 'the filename of stack <name
> of behavior>' - which is more verbose but means you can avoid 'this me'.
> (Given that if you change the name of a behavior, any references to it
> break, you are forced to choose your behavior names wisely - hence why we
> use reverse-dns notation in the IDE).
>
> Pondering slightly, if we codify the notion of a script object (i.e.
> something which is just a script), then perhaps we could have:
>
>   - this object (me): the object currently executing
>
>   - this script (this me): the script currently executing
>
> Perhaps something to consider in the future (I've not spent any time
> considering whether 'this script' might have a more useful connotation!).
>
> 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​.
>>
>
> I did a patch for this whilst having coffee this morning:
>
>    https://github.com/livecode/livecode/pull/6290
>
> It garnered some discussion internally - mainly whether the idea of a
> 'loadStack' message would be better. I think it was decided that
> 'loadStack' (i.e. a message sent after a stack is loaded, but before opened
> - something which happens whenever you reference a stack via a chunk
> without a go/open verb) was an orthogonal thing (and a fair bit more
> difficult to implement!).
>
> Still needs some tests and generally checking around the idea - but as it
> stands at the moment it seems like a reasonable addition.
>
> ​Woot!​