On 2018-01-23 17:21, Geoff Canyon via use-livecode wrote:
This actually raises another point (and I'm sure this is a discussion
that
happened without me several years ago, but as long as we're here) is
there
a reason to use "this me" which seems terribly awkward, over "the
behavior
of me" which is to my ear far more straightforward (it didn't require
any
additional code or syntax) if a bit more verbose?
There's a longish thread on the engine forum about this...
The 'behavior of me' works fine as long as you aren't using a chained
behavior - in the latter case, it would only give you the behavior
object directly attached to 'me' (i.e. the object the behavior's are
acting on).
The need to actually get the object a behavior's script resides in is
really quite a rare operation (the only reason I think it is useful at
all in the context of script-only stacks being used for behaviors is for
resolving paths to resources relative to the behavior script file) so in
the end I plumped for something simple to add which wasn't going to
cause any difficulties in implementation or potential ambiguities - its
strangeness helps reinforce the fact 'are you sure you need to do this'
as well :)
In actual fact, I wonder whether it is really needed at all for
behaviors expressed as script only stacks - you can use 'the filename of
stack <name of behavior>' - which is more verbose but means you can
avoid 'this me'. (Given that if you change the name of a behavior, any
references to it break, you are forced to choose your behavior names
wisely - hence why we use reverse-dns notation in the IDE).
Pondering slightly, if we codify the notion of a script object (i.e.
something which is just a script), then perhaps we could have:
- this object (me): the object currently executing
- this script (this me): the script currently executing
Perhaps something to consider in the future (I've not spent any time
considering whether 'this script' might have a more useful
connotation!).
I'd propose the following:
script <script-name> with behavior <behavior-name>
Where <behavior-name> is resolved as a stack reference.
Sure, that sounds perfect.
I did a patch for this whilst having coffee this morning:
https://github.com/livecode/livecode/pull/6290
It garnered some discussion internally - mainly whether the idea of a
'loadStack' message would be better. I think it was decided that
'loadStack' (i.e. a message sent after a stack is loaded, but before
opened - something which happens whenever you reference a stack via a
chunk without a go/open verb) was an orthogonal thing (and a fair bit
more difficult to implement!).
Still needs some tests and generally checking around the idea - but as
it stands at the moment it seems like a reasonable addition.
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
