Ben,
My guess is that what's happening is that the property is first evaluated to
see if it is a variable. If it is, the value of the variable is substituted
for the name, hence:
put 23 into myStrangeProperty
put the myStrangeProperty of btn 1 into v
is asking Rev to "put the 23 of btn 1 into v"; something it can't do. You
can see this in the following example. Suppose I have an "age" custom
property for a field (field 1 in this case), and its value is currently "100
years old". The following works fine:
put "age" into tPropName
put the tPropName of fld 1
Rev subsistuted tPropName for the value in the variable ("age"), so it
translates to "put the age of fld 1", which in turn puts "100 years old"
into the message box.
If the property name is determined *not* to be a variable, it is assumed to
be the actual property name.
Hope this helps,
Ken Ray
Sons of Thunder Software
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Rubinstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:18 AM
Subject: Syntax for (custom) property names
> (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
>
_______________________________________________
improve-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/improve-revolution
