(I'm not sure if this is an x-talks issue, or a Rev/MC parser/implementation
issue.)
Am I missing something, or is the syntax for at least custom property names
a bit confused?
In the statement
put the myStrangeProperty of btn 1 into v
is "myStrangeProperty" a literal or a container? (My guess is that it's a
keyword - but an odd one, because it's never declared (and can't be)).
The statement above fails if "myStrangeProperty" is being used as a
container:
put 23 into myStrangeProperty
put the myStrangeProperty of btn 1 into v
That would suggest it's a literal; in line with other contexts in which
Rev/MC will allow a one-word literal to be used without quotes, provided it
hasn't already been implicitly or explicitly declared as a container. But
it isn't a literal, because
put the "myStrangeProperty" of btn 1 into v
doesn't compile.
I think what's happening is that the parser won't accept a quoted literal in
the syntax "the x of <object>", because it thinks 'x' should be a keyword.
But the compiler doesn't take 'x' as a keyword; it treats it as a unquoted
literal, unless it happens to have already been declared as a container, in
which case it compiles code to use the value of 'x' as a property name.
Thus this works fine:
put "myStrangeProperty" into myStrangeProperty
put the myStrangeProperty of btn 1 into v
I feel this is inconsitent. My suggestion would be that the parser should
accept the quoted form:
put the "myStrangeProperty" of btn 1 into v
Does this make sense? Am I failing to appreciate some rationale or value in
the current situation?
Ben Rubinstein | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cognitive Applications Ltd | Phone: +44 (0)1273-821600
http://www.cogapp.com | Fax : +44 (0)1273-728866
_______________________________________________
improve-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/improve-revolution
