Mike Kerner wrote:
The problem we have with arrays is that they don't let us really use
indirection, i.e. pointers/handles. It's a lot easier to write generic
handlers for a screen full of controls with pointers/handles. "DO" is ok,
but it's the same problem we've always had with "DO", namely it's slow.
It's very, very flexible, but it's slow.
Your post suggests an interesting angle:
Before xTalk had associative arrays, I used to work really hard to be
able to have arbitrary numbers of name-value pairs in structures that
were gracefully usable. Then when arrays came along so many things
became easy which had been difficult and slow before.
So with the sorts of things you'd like to do with pointers, what might
we imagine that would be to arrays what arrays are to "do" in terms of
efficient paradigm shift for certain ranges of problems?
Maybe there is indeed a very different way of working waiting to be
discovered and put to use.
Maybe it could become achievable within the time frame of Open Language....
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Systems
Software Design and Development for Desktop, Mobile, and Web
____________________________________________________________
ambassa...@fourthworld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
