The paradigm of containers and self-referenced names
Dar Scott
dsc at swcp.com
Thu Mar 24 16:31:52 EST 2005
On Mar 24, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Ken Ray wrote:
> And I *still* think that allowing for unquoted string literals is a bad
> idea. Even though every xTalk language has allowed for it, it is so
> prone to
> problems that if this small feature of xTalk were gone, I wouldn't
> miss it.
> But in reality I don't miss it anyway, since I don't use unquoted
> string
> literals myself. It's more for helping others who have mistakenly done
> things like:
>
> put "apple" into tFruit
> put theFruit into theSelectedFruit
>
> and wondering why "theSelectedFruit" holds the string "theFruit"
> (personally, I think it should hold an empty string).
One of the compromises I mentioned was making the initial value of a
container its name and drop the unquoted literals. Most traditional
scripts will work. Some folks would say, "Oh, I thought that was how
it worked."
In that case the above bug would still use the value "theFruit" and not
empty. That might provide a clue in debugging, but might also provide
more info than you wanted exposed in the field. If some field ended up
with "md5HashBase21" or "nina_dos" mixed in, the user might think hmmm.
If we add to that, that the initial value is empty if declared then
your style would not have to change.
Dar
--
**********************************************
DSC (Dar Scott Consulting & Dar's Lab)
http://www.swcp.com/dsc/
Programming Services and Software
**********************************************
More information about the use-livecode
mailing list