On 11/4/16 4:19 PM, mwieder wrote:
J. Landman Gay wrote
All the "native" LC functions are nouns.
Um, no.
That's just sematic sugar the xtalk language creates around some functions.
So
put the date
put the target
is the same as
put date()
put target()
Ruby allows the same thing, albeit
ric form, i.e. you can
create your own function and call it either way.
-
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Scripting-style-Verbs-in-function-names-tp4710027p4710089.html
Sent from the Revolution - User maili
What is wierd is that we are calling commands and functions as though they were
properties. Another layer in the onion. I think all this reveals how truely
difficult it is to create an "english like" language, when English (and all
languages) are so relative by nature and dependent to some degre
Hmmm... interesting. Well for instance I have some contact functions and
commands like addContact, updateContact, deleteContact, saveContact etc. and I
use this regularly so getSomething() for my vote. The assumtion otherwise is
that the value returned is the something you are trying to get. Wha
Do they not teach sentence diagramming to geeks any more? If you can't
diagram it, you can't use it in xtalk. That's the rule. Obey.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Keith Martin wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2016, at 23:00, Devin Asay wrote:
>
> I think the best function names are the ones that “read” na
On 3 Nov 2016, at 23:00, Devin Asay wrote:
I think the best function names are the ones that “read” naturally
in a statement
And that, in a nutshell, is one of the beautiful things about the xTalk
language(s). Natural readability is important, so wherever this makes
sense it, rather than gen
Thanks all, interesting discussion
There is another aspect of function/handler naming which is their names in
relation to APIs - for example I might have a checkConnectivity() function in
an mainstack's stack or card which calls a cgi.checkConnectivity() function in
a code library called “cgi”
Thanks for taking the time to write such a considered response Mark
>
> Are these names any better than the ones already used in the library? It is
> hard to say - naming preferences are highly subjective!
>
I like them, the only thing I’m not sure about is the multiple `mime` in each.
> Just m
If the goal is to emulate (to some extent) the English-like nature of
script in our handler names, then I think it is instructive to look at
the syntactic forms employed in the current syntax that exists. I can
think of the following general forms:
- properties:
the X
the X of
> On 4 Nov. 2016, at 12:07 pm, hh wrote:
>
>> Monte wrote:
>> Peter has asked me to "Please name this function with a verb"
>
> Perhaps he simply meant:
> set property "name" of this function to "a verb"?
No I don’t think so. This is common best practice so what’s up for discussion
is whether
> Monte wrote:
> Peter has asked me to "Please name this function with a verb"
Perhaps he simply meant:
set property "name" of this function to "a verb"?
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, un
Monte Goulding wrote:
> In a PR I have open Peter has asked me to `Please name this function
> with a verb` and I recognised that in LiveCode this is something I
> don’t do out of habit while in other languages it is. Why? Because in
> the context the a function is used there is already a verb in
> On 4 Nov. 2016, at 10:55 am, Paul Dupuis wrote:
>
> Of course, just to be contrary, English has lots of grammatical
> inconsistencies. So if one of the goals of LiveCode script is to be
> "English-like" shouldn't it have a few grammatical inconsistencies too?
Well we won’t have any trouble th
Of course, just to be contrary, English has lots of grammatical
inconsistencies. So if one of the goals of LiveCode script is to be
"English-like" shouldn't it have a few grammatical inconsistencies too?
On 11/3/2016 7:43 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
>> On 4 Nov. 2016, at 10:21 am, Phil Davis wrote
> On 4 Nov. 2016, at 10:21 am, Phil Davis wrote:
>
> I like Devin's reasoning on this. One of the great benefits we enjoy in using
> LiveCode is the "English-like" syntax. This is one of LC's hallmark features.
> As I see it, we should work to preserve it and extend it in our naming of
> comm
I like Devin's reasoning on this. One of the great benefits we enjoy in
using LiveCode is the "English-like" syntax. This is one of LC's
hallmark features. As I see it, we should work to preserve it and extend
it in our naming of commands and functions.
My 2 cents' worth -
Phil Davis
On 11/3
at even a handler is also similarly of this form:
doSomething
But the way function calls are framed begs for, demands a verb, even if
handler calls kind of, ought to, do as well.
Craig
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Scripting-styl
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 4:16 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
>
> Hi LiveCoders
>
> In a PR I have open Peter has asked me to `Please name this function with a
> verb` and I recognised that in LiveCode this is something I don’t do out of
> habit while in other languages it is. Why? Because in the conte
Monte,
You might as well ask: Coke or Pepsi? or Mac or Windows? or iOS or
Android? or Burger King or McDonalds or (pick your favorite non-American
head to head competing things) :-)
And is complex because, for example, I like the looks of "put
Something() into container" in my code. However, when
All the "native" LC functions are nouns. The reason is that LC functions
can be used with either parentheses or preceded by "the". So we get this:
put the date
put the selectedChunk
put the target
If these were verbs:
put the getDate
put the getSelectedChunk
put the getTarget
whic
tItalicizedText
-
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Scripting-style-Verbs-in-function-names-tp4710027p4710028.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archiv
Hi LiveCoders
In a PR I have open Peter has asked me to `Please name this function with a
verb` and I recognised that in LiveCode this is something I don’t do out of
habit while in other languages it is. Why? Because in the context the a
function is used there is already a verb in the statement
22 matches
Mail list logo
