> On Dec 8, 2016, at 5:09 PM, mwieder <ahsoftw...@sonic.net> wrote: > > I don't see these as anomalies or inconsistencies, but as features that help > implement proper object-oriented behavior. Tim- what "problems" do you see > with the way this is implemented? Am I missing something?
Thanks Mark. I probably shouldn’t have used the word “problems” anywhere in my post. I agree, there are terrific benefits with the current implementation of the behavior feature. My main concern was insuring that what I observed was intended. If everything I described is by design, then the “inconsistencies” I noted are in my conceptual model of the language (extended object message path vs concatenation of scripts). Is there a better model that accounts for how the engine implements behaviors than an unpredictable combination of the two I’ve identified? An oversimplified understanding of how the engine processes scripts can get even experienced developers into trouble. The dictionary entry on "behavior" only hints at the full power of the feature and it might be difficult to expand it without invoking an accurate model of the engine’s rule set for behaviors. Tim Bleiler, Ph.D. Instructional Designer, HSIT University at Buffalo _______________________________________________ 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
