On 2015-10-29 20:33, Richard Gaskin wrote:
I like the compactness, but have mixed feelings about the semantics.
I think it is less compact than a function form with appropriately
chosen name (or suitable English-like syntax). Semantics wise it is
introducing dynamicity in a case where there is absolutely no need for
it...
We might consider using a fourth argument for return type and leave
the third for starting offset, but given how frequently offset is used
without a specified start I'd guess most of the time it'd just be an
empty arg:
get lineoffset("foo", tText,"","text")
For me, this fails two 'tests' one could imagine for choosing syntax:
1) It makes an operation which is 'static' (i.e. chosen at the point of
compilation) 'dynamic' (needing switching at runtime to perform). Now
dynamicity is very important in making generalization possible. However,
in this case, there isn't really a reasonable case for it - if "text" is
specified as the final parameter then it will return a string, if not it
will return a number. These two different things make it unlikely that
at a single point of code you would need to choose dynamically (as
supporting code would need to be different) and such you are taking the
performance impact of dynamicity in a case where it would never be used.
2) It is likely that the "text" option will see almost as much use as
the non-"text" option (which is why - beyond performance reasons - there
is definitely an abstraction lurking that deserves its own form) but
with the modification needed to make it uniform we end up with a
situation where one option is significantly more difficult to access
than the other.
Warmest Regards,
Mark.
--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps
_______________________________________________
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
