Anthony:>>I think the do command, the send command, and any run-time
>>variable naming should be left in the scrap heap of history.
>
Moi:>I occasionally use all three; though my main concern would be loss of
send,
>unless we have another method of bypassing the normal message passing
>hierarchy.
A few thoughts beyond my original "how can I do without those capabilities?":
* Anthony, is this because --
A. The capabilities would be inefficient if implemented,
B. Implementation of these capabilities would negatively impact overall
performance (eg: implementing send slows all message passing), or
C. Something else (please explain)?
* FWIW, I recall discussions on the Xtalk list extolling the power of do to
enable Xtalk to be self-modifying. I rarely use it myself; but there is a
lot of potential power in do (and by extension, runtime variable naming).
* As to HC/OC compatability, I think it's good as an initial goal primarily
because it gives us an existing specification and capabilities list that we
are all familiar with. I'm not wedded to the concept; but I think we
should have a good reason for not supporting existing HyperTalk syntax.
Rob Cozens, CCW
http://www.serendipitysoftware.com/who.html
"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."
from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
