Crazy script-only stack question

[Mike Kerner]

@JLG I thought with "breaktpoint" you could debug SOS behaviors

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 1:21 PM, Geoff Canyon via use-livecode <
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> 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!​
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
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."