RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-03-08 Thread MidiToolz
-- > A function of birthing a child object would come from attributes found in the parent object while passing values during creation. I think somebody has had a little too much Jolt cola... There are much better environments to do this in, like NetBeans (www.netbean

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-03-02 Thread Bob Warren
Dear Sivakatirswami, I was brought up on Basic and VB. In VB (VB6 I mean, not VB.NET), the dot notation is not all that obscure, but nevertheless, after making the transition to Transcript and its verbosity, the fact that someone might consider making it more like VB makes my hair stand on end

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-03-02 Thread Sivakatirswami
And some of us don't know anything *but* xTalk, and I'm happy i don;'t dot notation and such... let's be very careful...find a way to do the same thing in verbose xTalk and it will live...infect the language with obscurity and it will die a slow death from the inside out. If everyone comme

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-27 Thread Mark Brownell
>Mark- >Sunday, February 26, 2006, 12:36:57 PM, you wrote: >> Perhaps a few of you around here will find this funny, I could do >> an implementation of OOPs with a pull-parser. The trick to creating >> a child object is to assign attributes of the parent object to a >> child object. What is nee

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-27 Thread John Tregea
Dear Rob, Thanks for the information. Cheers John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Cozens Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 12:33 AM To: How to use Revolution Subject: Re: Transcript and Dot Notation Hi John: > I am not sure

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation - the really "embarrassing" concepts IMHO

2006-02-27 Thread Marty Knapp
Mark Wieder wrote: Rob- Monday, February 27, 2006, 8:33:04 AM, you wrote: If we all agree on everything all the time, what a dull, homogenous, narrow-scoped group we have become. I shudder to think what would happen if everyone agreed with me. It's bad enough when *anyone* agrees wit

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation - the really "embarrassing" concepts IMHO

2006-02-27 Thread Mark Wieder
Rob- Monday, February 27, 2006, 8:33:04 AM, you wrote: > If we all agree on everything all the time, what a dull, homogenous, > narrow-scoped group we have become. I shudder to think what would happen if everyone agreed with me. It's bad enough when *anyone* agrees with me... -- -Mark Wieder

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-27 Thread Karen
On 27 Feb 2006, at 15:12, Stephen Barncard wrote: Integer Basic rocked. It was faster than FP. And with the 'Sweet Sixteen' 6502 functions by Woz were really useful. I built a lot of crazy gear for the movie industry with this stuff. My old favourites were Basic XL on the old Atari 800 (showi

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation - the really "embarrassing" concepts IMHO

2006-02-27 Thread Rob Cozens
Dear Dan, In the future, I'll keep my strong opinions to myself. Please sleep on that thought another night. Even the best and the brightest and can have a bad day, or find the path that seems logical viewed differently by others. If we all agree on everything all the time, what a dull, ho

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-27 Thread Rob Cozens
Hi John: I am not sure how Revolution ISN't already OO? I used to feel the same way about HyperTalk: give me an OO concept, and I'll script something that emulates it. The difference is, in a true OO language, those concepts are built into the platform when you open the box. Rob Cozens C

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-27 Thread Stephen Barncard
Integer Basic rocked. It was faster than FP. And with the 'Sweet Sixteen' 6502 functions by Woz were really useful. I built a lot of crazy gear for the movie industry with this stuff. sqb I need to stop going to bed. The best posts are while I'm sleeping. Hey, John, stop hating on Apple FP

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-27 Thread Jim Ault
On 2/27/06 6:53 AM, "Thomas McGrath III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 01010011 0110 01110010 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100111 > 0010 01110100 01101000 01110010 0110 01110101 01100111 > 01101000 0010 01101100 01101001 01101110 01100101 01110011 > 0010 0110 01100110 001000

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-27 Thread Thomas McGrath III
01010011 0110 01110010 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100111 0010 01110100 01101000 01110010 0110 01110101 01100111 01101000 0010 01101100 01101001 01101110 01100101 01110011 0010 0110 01100110 0010 01100010 01101001 01101110 0111 01110010 0001 0010 011

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-27 Thread Alex Tweedly
John Vokey wrote: All, I'd rather stick pins in my eyes. Seriously: what is gained here that can't be accomplished with either a) copy and paste (my favourite) or b) object duplication (my next favourite)? Quote: "If I could change one thing to improve the quality of our code, it would

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-27 Thread Mikey
I need to stop going to bed. The best posts are while I'm sleeping. Hey, John, stop hating on Apple FP BASIC! Its predecessor, Integer Basic, was used from when EPCOT Center in Disney World opened until almost ten years later to control the spotlights during Laserphonic Fantasy. Oh, and while t

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-27 Thread Robert Brenstein
Well, certainly Revolution is OO-like, but it's hard for me coming from a strong OOD/OOP background to see it as a legitimate OO offering. The number one rule of encapsulation seems "broken" most of the time in xtalk-like languages. When I have multiple buttons on a card that have the same beha

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Scott Kane
> I'd rather stick pins in my eyes. Kids, don't try this at home... ;-) Scott ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.r

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Scott Kane
> in octal on the face of the ``computer'' to initialise the ``boot- > loader'' so that the machine could get started. Sometimes I miss converting hex and oct into decimal. I started my professional career (as opposed to my teenage programming) programming Data Checker DTS cash registers. The "

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Mark Wieder
Mark- Sunday, February 26, 2006, 12:36:57 PM, you wrote: > Perhaps a few of you around here will find this funny, I could do > an implementation of OOPs with a pull-parser. The trick to creating > a child object is to assign attributes of the parent object to a > child object. What is needed dur

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation - the really "embarrassing" concepts IMHO

2006-02-26 Thread Judy Perry
No! Dan: does not progress occur more often when people disagree than when they agree? What is the incentive for progress when everyone is one big mass of contented, happy campers? (the Rev list comes to mind, for instance: is it everybody being supremely contented that moves the company to fix

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Stephen Barncard
Love conquers all!! It's a beautiful world today. sqb And so I apologize to Dan for having offended him. Judy On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Dan Shafer wrote: > I have slept on this. I have decided to take the advice of my wife and -- stephen barncard s a n f r a n c i s c o - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Judy Perry
I have likewise refrained from even opening my computer (a laptop) to read email until now, a good or nearly 24 hours after the initial conflagration, in order to try to gain some balance and composure and understanding. I've got a big mouth, by which I mean to convey that I am an opinionated indi

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Stephen Barncard
It's nice to see some new 'old school' programmers on this list! What a great perspective... welcome aboard to this listif you've just been lurking until now.. sqb -- stephen barncard s a n f r a n c i s c o - - - - - - - - - - - - ___ use-revo

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Arthur Urban
hrough. Regards John T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Shafer Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:45 PM To: Mark Brownell; How to use Revolution Subject: Re: Transcript and Dot Notation Before Lingo adopted dot notation, it had an interm

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread John Vokey
All, I'd rather stick pins in my eyes. Seriously: what is gained here that can't be accomplished with either a) copy and paste (my favourite) or b) object duplication (my next favourite)? I have programmed in virtually every language extant (and many no longer), including most machine la

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Judy Perry
Problem is, I don't know of any emoticons that say: "I make this argument in all sincerity with no covert aspersions on your character." Unless you'd like to point me to it, of course (I could so clearly use it in my "arsenal"...). Judy On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Scott Kane wrote: > > > The Secret C

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread John Tregea
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Shafer Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:45 PM To: Mark Brownell; How to use Revolution Subject: Re: Transcript and Dot Notation Before Lingo adopted dot notation, it had an intermediate parent-child "xTalk varietal" approach.

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Dan Shafer
Before Lingo adopted dot notation, it had an intermediate parent-child "xTalk varietal" approach. I've forgotten now how it worked but I recall it was hard to learn and very slow. That may or may not have any bearing on this design, however. On 2/26/06, Mark Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Mark Brownell
>On Feb 25, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Scott Kane wrote: > >>> What do dots enable that >>> Transcript does not? >> >> Properties and methods. > >Objects can already have properties, and methods as well. They can't >have _inherited_ methods -- at least not in the traditional IO sense. >An object inher

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation - the really "embarrassing"concepts IMHO

2006-02-26 Thread Dan Shafer
Understood. Paradox is inevitable. Resolution of paradox leads to new truth. And that's quite enough philosophizing for me for one day. :-) On 2/26/06, jbv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dan, > > > "Those of us who haved trained our brains to think in those terms" > > does not seem to me to im

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation - the really "embarrassing"concepts IMHO

2006-02-26 Thread jbv
Dan, > "Those of us who haved trained our brains to think in those terms" > does not seem to me to imply any claim of superiority, just the very > differences that you point out. I am sorry if you thought that was an > embarrassing comment about which I ought to feel some shame. > well again my

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation - the really "embarrassing" concepts IMHO

2006-02-26 Thread Dan Shafer
"Those of us who haved trained our brains to think in those terms" does not seem to me to imply any claim of superiority, just the very differences that you point out. I am sorry if you thought that was an embarrassing comment about which I ought to feel some shame. But I'm bowing, scraping, and b

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Dan Shafer
I have slept on this. I have decided to take the advice of my wife and other sages whose wisdom I admire. It is better to be happy than right. This picture is not who I am or who I want to be, here or anywhere else. I sincerely apologize to Judy, and to any member of the list who was insulted by m

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Stephen Barncard
Dude, your rights to post to this list are rapidly diminishing. This list is MODERATED, and Runrev and the listmom reserve the right to boot you at any time, for any reason they wish. I'd say cool it - for the rest of us, and for your own sake, if you want to get anything out of this list. P

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Rob Cozens
Hi Garrett, Ahh, the "Good Ol' Boy" system No, it's the "family" system. Some of us began these discussions over 15 years ago on the early HyperCard lists. We have discussed many on- and off-topic issues over the years, publicly and privately. We explore off topic issues more broadly tha

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Rob Cozens
Dan, Richard, et al: Just making dot syntax an alternative -- or even implementing OO syntax using it -- doesn't have to corrupt the underlying Transcript syntax *except* for those people who choose an OO approach to their Rev projects. So dot syntax is optional...UNLESS people choose to use

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation - the really "embarrassing" concepts IMHO

2006-02-26 Thread jbv
if you guys allow me to squeeze a few words in this (hot) thread, I'd like to say that the initial post by Dan Shafer contains a couple of sentences that I would qualify as, ahem "embarrassing", especially due to Dan's huge contribution to the xTalk world for many years... actually it reminds me o

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Thomas McGrath III
classMyObject: def __init__ (self): self.initialize() def initialize(self): self._value=None def _setProperty (self, name, value): print "set property" setattr (self, name, value) def _getProperty (self, name): print "get property"

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Scott Kane
> Ahh, the "Good Ol' Boy" system, and since I'm the new kid on the > block, it's not my place to voice my opinion on something that came > through this list. But since Judy and Dan are part of the "Good Ol' > Boy" system, it's ok for them to voice their opinion, even > have a flame. <*Sigh

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Garrett Hylltun
On Feb 26, 2006, at 2:24 AM, Chipp Walters wrote: Garrett, From the brief readings of your few previous posts, it's apparent while you have very little history with our list and community, you are certainly quick to join in the fray. Both Judy and Dan are respected list members, who both

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread David Vaughan
People, this is not cool. Sleep time. cheers David ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-r

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Chipp Walters
Garrett, From the brief readings of your few previous posts, it's apparent while you have very little history with our list and community, you are certainly quick to join in the fray. Both Judy and Dan are respected list members, who both have contributed over a long time to this list, worth

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Geoff Canyon
On Feb 26, 2006, at 12:33 AM, Jeanne A. E. DeVoto wrote: At 12:20 AM -0800 2/26/2006, Geoff Canyon wrote: (g) co-routines (h) anonymous functions What are co-routines and anonymous functions? (Curious...) A co-routine is kind of like a thread except that it only yields time at certain sp

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Scott Kane
> The Secret Cause of Flame Wars > By Stephen Leahy That's why the :-) ;-) :-( :-O are so useful... >-) Scott ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscrip

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Dave Cragg
On 26 Feb 2006, at 09:04, Richard Gaskin wrote: The Secret Cause of Flame Wars By Stephen Leahy "Don't work too hard," wrote a colleague in an e-mail today. Was she sincere or sarcastic? I think I know (sarcastic), but I'm probably wrong. According to recent research publishe

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Richard Gaskin
The Secret Cause of Flame Wars By Stephen Leahy "Don't work too hard," wrote a colleague in an e-mail today. Was she sincere or sarcastic? I think I know (sarcastic), but I'm probably wrong. According to recent research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psy

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Garrett Hylltun
On Feb 26, 2006, at 12:41 AM, Dan Shafer wrote: Judy. I preferred to take this off-llist. You chose to make it a public fight. I choose not to engage. I did not intend that anyone would see my comment about paranoia as an attack on any individual or indeed on any specific position on this

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Judy Perry
You and me both... for many a year now!!! 'cuz I look really stupid -- no, even stupider than people think I am, really -- when I offer up to my students Scott Raney's "explanation" that 'it can't be done on Windows'... Judy On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Scott Kane wrote: > > > (f) multi-channel sound s

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Dan Shafer
Judy. I preferred to take this off-llist. You chose to make it a public fight. I choose not to engage. I did not intend that anyone would see my comment about paranoia as an attack on any individual or indeed on any specific position on this issue. I was referring to the general level of heat

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Judy Perry
Without personal attacks, (well, as much as is human) my responses are below: On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Dan Shafer wrote: > Perhaps more to the point, can you name ANY surviving xTalk? Nope. > They're all pretty much dead except for Transcript. I could argue with > equal weight and perhaps a tad less

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Jeanne A. E. DeVoto
At 12:20 AM -0800 2/26/2006, Geoff Canyon wrote: (g) co-routines (h) anonymous functions What are co-routines and anonymous functions? (Curious...) -- jeanne a. e. devoto ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jaedworks.com ___ use-revolution mailing list use

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Scott Kane
> (f) multi-channel sound support (I put this one in for Scott Rossi) Ooooh! I'd like that. Scott ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferenc

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Geoff Canyon
On Feb 25, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Scott Kane wrote: What do dots enable that Transcript does not? Properties and methods. Objects can already have properties, and methods as well. They can't have _inherited_ methods -- at least not in the traditional OO sense. An object inherits methods fro

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Geoff Canyon
On Feb 25, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Dan Shafer wrote: Would you rather have: (a) No object orientation (b) OO with the current syntax with poor performance or (c) OO with dot notation and acceptable performance I'm not saying those are the *only* choices but they're the big ones. Off the top of my

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Scott Kane
> Am I the only remaining non-Vulcan?? Live long and prosper. :-) Scott ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.co

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-26 Thread Judy Perry
Wishing, indeed, that there was such ensuing 'good humor'... as opposed to rancour. :-( Am I the only remaining non-Vulcan?? Judy On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Dick Kriesel wrote: > Is there a Transcript implementation of dot syntax? Or how do non-dot > people learn about the benefits of dots? If the

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Scott Kane
> Is there a Transcript implementation of dot syntax? Or how > do non-dot people learn about the benefits of dots? If the > dot folks could wrap the dots within Transcript handlers, > maybe they could offer a dot library, like libDot. Or could > a macro language do the trick? What do dots e

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Dick Kriesel
Is there a Transcript implementation of dot syntax? Or how do non-dot people learn about the benefits of dots? If the dot folks could wrap the dots within Transcript handlers, maybe they could offer a dot library, like libDot. Or could a macro language do the trick? What do dots enable that Tra

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Scott Kane
Judy, > Creating a .notation of Rev will NOT keep strict x-Talkers > happy. I may be the most vocal opponent, but I suspect I am > far, far, from the only one. Why would a version of a product that you yourself would never use be something you'd be opposed to? I'm not sure I follow you... Che

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Judy Perry
Dan, Wait a minute... *MY* personal insult??? Weren't you the one who dealt my argument the death blow of being mere "paranoia"? After having personally resurrected it from irrelevantdom? Does it get more personal than that? I am paranoid therefore my arguments need not be considered? And I

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Scott Kane
> Wouldn't it be smarter to just leave Rev alone and simply produce > another standalone product that fits the dot. ideals? > > Don't even mix the two at all, just make separate products. > It would > be totally asinine to mutilate Rev into some abomination. Err - that's exactly the intenti

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Judy Perry
Scott, Creating a .notation of Rev will NOT keep strict x-Talkers happy. I may be the most vocal opponent, but I suspect I am far, far, from the only one. And, well, probably *everyone's* happy that I'm not in charge... ;-) Judy On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Scott Kane wrote: > Judy, > The Mac end of

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Garrett Hylltun
On Feb 25, 2006, at 9:55 PM, Scott Kane wrote: [snip] It's a compromise. X-Talks for those that want it or .notation for those that do not. It's not a far stretch as many development platform Wouldn't it be smarter to just leave Rev alone and simply produce another standalone product tha

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Garrett Hylltun
On Feb 25, 2006, at 9:50 PM, Dan Shafer wrote: My Gosh, Judy, you do get emotional about the strangest stuff. Lighten up. This is a theoretical discussion about language syntax, not a public policy decision that could result in the deaths of millions. Yeesh. I'll deal with your personal insul

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Dan Shafer
My Gosh, Judy, you do get emotional about the strangest stuff. Lighten up. This is a theoretical discussion about language syntax, not a public policy decision that could result in the deaths of millions. Yeesh. I'll deal with your personal insult off-list because I don't believe in responding to

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Scott Kane
Judy, I'm not saying this *should* be done, so please take it in the spirit it is meant, that is pure discussional value. > Given your list of choices, I'm forced to select (a). When > you're done, will there be sufficient remaining existing and > potential users to keep the company afloat? T

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Judy Perry
Nonetheless, as a result, Dan, Lingo became unlearnable/unapproachable from a verbos syntax point of view. And now it's dead. And, yes, the available books/list syntax help/whatever played a HUGE part. Handwringing has substantially less to do with it than the absolute dearth of verbose syntax l

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Judy Perry
Yes, perhaps (I don't agree, but obviously others would)... However... You now have TWO different ways of reading Transcript. How do you know when and how? And what if VB syntax gets added? and ... whatever else it is syntax that people can already do in some other pre-existing perfectly ugly

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Mikey
Dot-syntax blows. xTalk doesn't. The problem with allowing radically different syntax conventions is that you may soon wind up with a tool like *CENSORED*, where you can mix and match the syntaxes of *CENSORED*, and pretty soon ask yourself, why did I learn *CENSORED* and avoid learning *CENSORED

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Mark Smith
On 26 Feb 2006, at 02:01, Dan Shafer wrote: I'm not saying those are the *only* choices but they're the big ones. So I'd rather have OO with the current syntax and acceptable performance :) Mark ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lis

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Dan Shafer
Seems like there's a fair bit of paranoia abroad in this land. Just making dot syntax an alternative -- or even implementing OO syntax using it -- doesn't have to corrupt the underlying Transcript syntax *except* for those people who choose an OO approach to their Rev projects. Hand-wringing about

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Jim Ault
On 2/25/06 1:31 PM, "Judy Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Amen, Rob. > > If it is OO *capabilities* that are desired, then fine: just provide them > in a natural-language manner (e.g., keep it transparent). > > But the language paradigm simply cannot be allowed to be converted from a > focuse

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Jeanne A. E. DeVoto
At 4:25 PM -0600 2/24/2006, Peter T. Evensen wrote: send "go" to traffic light... That works for methods, but how about functions? I have never liked the current transcript syntax of Value("GetCurrentColor()", TrafficLight).TrafficLight.GetColor() is much more readable, in my opinion.

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Judy Perry
Amen, Rob. If it is OO *capabilities* that are desired, then fine: just provide them in a natural-language manner (e.g., keep it transparent). But the language paradigm simply cannot be allowed to be converted from a focused, internally-consistent one into the mishm-mash of "whatever" (VB syntax?

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Mark Smith
I agree. Any extension to transcript should surely be as natural to it as possible. Adopting non-xTalk-like syntax wholesale from other languages would make any real OO stuff more like using applescript or VBScript in Rev, which is fine and useful, but would tend to be attractive only to th

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Rob Cozens
Hi all--except Mr. X :{( So if Transcript does go object-oriented -- and I hope and believe it will, though it may be an alternative fork rather than a forced switch -- I hope it *does* in fact adopt dot notation so that all of us who have trained our brains to think in those terms when we c

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-25 Thread Alex Tweedly
Judy Perry wrote: 1. It being "optional" didn't stop it from destroying accessibility to verbose Lingo in Director. Latecomers to Director didn't have any other learning "options" or "choices" than dot.speak. Yes, I think that's a danger, especially if a large part of the audience for boo

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Judy Perry
1. It being "optional" didn't stop it from destroying accessibility to verbose Lingo in Director. Latecomers to Director didn't have any other learning "options" or "choices" than dot.speak. 2. Optional isn't the same as transparent. I'd be less leery if I could look in a crystal ball and see

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Dan Shafer
On 2/24/06, James Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Objective C (which has some obvious Smalltalk influence) >does not use dot notation for accessing instance variables.-- Absolutely right. Objective-C is s much cleaner than C++. I mourned the latter's victory over the former when the

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread James Spencer
On Feb 24, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Dan Shafer wrote: I am an object-oriented programmer by training and disposition. Every single object oriented programming language that I've used (and I have admittedly not used them all) with the single exception of Smalltalk (which I actually think got it right)

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread J. Landman Gay
Dan Shafer wrote: I don't recall this being hashed out and finished several times, Jacque. Seems to be an annual event. I see two threads in the archives, February of 2004 and another in August 2005, and now this one. That doesn't seem like enough to me, I'm pretty sure there were a couple mo

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Mark Smith
Well maybe one could 'see' an objects functions as properties, like in Eiffel, or at least in my dim understanding of it. get the sqrt(9) of mathsObject Mark On 24 Feb 2006, at 22:25, Peter T. Evensen wrote: At 03:58 PM 2/24/2006, Andre Garzia wrote: So why can't we do transcript-ish thing

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Dan Shafer
Just for the record, I didn't bring this up again. Judy Perry did. I just moved the discussion to a new thread and offered my opinion. On 2/24/06, Thomas McGrath III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No not this again > > Why does he keep bringing this up? > > > Just po

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Dan Shafer
I don't recall this being hashed out and finished several times, Jacque. Maybe it's been resolved to YOUR satisfaction, but someone else raised the issue in another thread, so evidently at least some of us don't think the issue's been resolved. Except of course this is all hypothetical BS because

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Dan Shafer
Andre.. While you're not exactly wrong here, you do miss the central point/issue. To use your example, if I'm designing a traffic system with lots of TrafficLight objects, I need a way to create individual instances of that object, give them identifiers, and send messages either to the individ

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Dan Shafer
In Smalltalk, the basic principle was the use of words parsed left to right for readability, right to left for precedence of operation. Parameters were embedded in method calls separated with colons. So, for example, to create a new instance of a Person object, you would write something like: newP

RE: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Scott Kane
> Richard Gaskin > Sent: Saturday, 25 February 2006 8:27 AM > To: How to use Revolution > Subject: Re: Transcript and Dot Notation > This is so very non-controversial I'm surprised it comes up again and > again as such Agreed. It'd also be a major attraction,

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Thomas McGrath III
You mean like an object template? Tom On Feb 24, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Jonathan Lynch wrote: One thought is that they could create some sort of blank object, with, like all possible properties that one could think of, that could be set from the property inspector - like a universal object. T

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Jonathan Lynch
This is exactly the way transcript works now, except that it would allow you to create custom objects. But that raises a whole new issue... How would you define a custom object? Right now, I use groups to create custom objects, like specialized tables and the like. But, say we wanted to define

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread J. Landman Gay
Thomas McGrath III wrote: No not this again Why does he keep bringing this up? Got me. I thought we'd already finished this conversation several times. I don't see the point of hashing it out all over again. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROT

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Peter T. Evensen
At 03:58 PM 2/24/2006, Andre Garzia wrote: So why can't we do transcript-ish things like: set the stopColor of TrafficLight to red set the interval of TrafficLight to 20 secs Would there be any reason to distinguish between custom properties and a object property? If not, I see the above wo

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Phil Davis
Hey, Andre, I like this! Phil Davis Andre Garzia wrote: Folks, taking the risk of sounding naive, why can't we deal with objects the way we deal with custom props? for example imagine the following Traffic Light object with properties and methods: TrafficLight.stopColor --

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Andre Garzia
Folks, taking the risk of sounding naive, why can't we deal with objects the way we deal with custom props? for example imagine the following Traffic Light object with properties and methods: TrafficLight.stopColor --- Red TrafficLight.attentionColor --- Yellow TrafficLig

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Peter T. Evensen
At 03:27 PM 2/24/2006, you wrote: This is so very non-controversial I'm surprised it comes up again and again as such If it keeps causing controversy, isn't it by definition controversial? ;) (I just couldn't resist) Peter T. Evensen http://www.PetersRoadToHealth.com 314-629-5248 or 8

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Thomas McGrath III
No not this again Why does he keep bringing this up? Just poking fun, Tom I can read dot but have never really 'liked' it. On Feb 24, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Dan Shafer wrote: I seem to have a knack for starting discussion threads that are probably just close enou

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Richard Gaskin
Judy Perry wrote: OPTIONAL dot.speak I fear will end Transcript's natural-language orientation. Regex isn't exactly "natural", but those that use it like that it's included as an OPTION. I don't recall anyone saying that RunRev was going to force users to replace years of legacy code with d

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Peter T. Evensen
At 03:14 PM 2/24/2006, you wrote: I've said it before and will say it again: If true OO is what you really want, why not just use one of the bazillion OO languages? Once Lingo went down that route, it ceased to be a learnable language for ordinary humans. I think there are two issues here, or

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Peter T. Evensen
At 02:02 PM 2/24/2006, you wrote: I am an object-oriented programmer by training and disposition. Every single object oriented programming language that I've used (and I have admittedly not used them all) with the single exception of Smalltalk (which I actually think got it right) uses dot notati

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Judy Perry
What possible competitive advantage does it offer to the company for it to transform Transcript into yet another bit player in a very major league? With it being an x-Talk, it offers certain advantages, such as ease of learning/reading, that are all but nonexistant in your "traditional" programmin

Re: Transcript and Dot Notation

2006-02-24 Thread Jim Ault
On 2/24/06 12:14 PM, "Dan Shafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> .this.that.thatotherthing.IsThisParticularDotSupposedToBeAMethodOrAnObject.Sh >> ootMeNow My vote would be that the option to use dot notation would be quite welcome. I, too, use programs that become much simpler and functional that

  1   2   >