Thanks for taking so much time on this, Richard. I get it now, but here is another example where the dictionary could do better!
> On Aug 31, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Richard Gaskin <ambassa...@fourthworld.com> > wrote: > > An object reference can be a string, or an expression that evaluates to a > string. For example these put the same string into the variable tVar: > > put the long id of btn id 1721 of stack "SomeStack" into tVar > put "btn id 1721 of stack ""e& "SomeStack" "e into tVar > > The difference between that second expression and the example you gave above > that didn't work is that when using the "set" command the tokens following it > will be evaluated. > > When quoted, or prepended with "the long id of ", the result of that > expression is a string, which is then used by the "set" command. > > But without quotes the expression is evaluated, which results in "set" using > the contents of the button. > > This ambiguity in xTalk was handy in allowing us to do things like this: > > put fld 1 + fld 2 into fld 3 > > ...but comes at a cost to ambiguity, since you're not the first person I've > come across who expects an object reference to be treated as an object > reference rather than as a series of tokens to be evaluated. > > Lately I tend to prefer property-driven syntax for its clarity: > > set the text of fld 3 to the text of fld 1 + the text of fld 2 > > Much more cumbersome to write, but avoids the whole question of whether I'm > referring to a property of the object or the object itself. > > This "explanation" may only add to the confusion, but there's the rub: for > all the seeming simplicity of xTalk, there are more than a few such > ambiguities, which can make it harder to learn. And I believe this one is > among the ambiguities LiveCode Builder addresses. _______________________________________________ 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