Jim,
On Jun 23, 2005, at 10:40 PM, Jim MacConnell wrote:
Dennis,
First.. thank you for your intelligent reply to my:
okay.. back into my hole...
Yes, Please stay there.
It is good to so easily learn so much of the people we correspond
with. I'm not surprised that I touched a nerve but I am surprised
at the scream ... sorry ;-{ )
My apologies, I was a bit over the top yesterday in my reply. Yes, I
want to make intelligent discussion not hyperbole. We all have our
bad days. I felt like I was being ambushed, and that you were going
to retreat out of the conversation.
Second..
var := x
var == x
var = x --this is a bit tougher
var isAssignedToTheValueOf x
var gets x
are all the same thing!
Well.. they are close. They all may have the same result at a
machine code level... (although I believe var == x resolves to TRUE
if var and x are the same (false otherwise).. and usually the same
for (var = x) if it is parentheses? )
Oops, but at least you knew what I meant . APL left arrow was
supposed to go into that spot.
but the discussion is not about values of variables or what the
machine does... or at least my contribution wasn't. It seemed to
me, the discussion was about consistency in a language and the
inclusion of semantically different operators in addition to those
that are inherently ones. Seems like you didn't understand rather
than me.
I did understand you, and I can accept that a var gets x is not xTalk
as long as var := x is also not xTalk. That was my point. The gets
"term" was my suggestion as being more xTalk than := and could be
related semantically to the get command which is also left assignment.
Third...
You say one is a good construct and another is an inconsistent
construct! That makes your argument inconsistent.
Maybe reread my post? I don't see in my message where I said any of
those was a good construct for an xTalk. I said "put x into var"
was a good construct for an xTalk language because it is consistent
with the concept of telling the object what "It" should do as
opposed to a variable being assigned something... It may seem a
trivial point but it is at the root of the discussion...
" I personally have nothing against ":=" and "=" for variable
assignment" --I took to be your acceptance as good.
Or perhaps the point is that if all of the above are the same but
are non-xTalk friendly conceptually, is it appropriate for us to
worry about whether Transcript includes any of them.... Of course
you left the "put x into var" out of the list even though I would
assume that from your point of view it is also the same thing....
So why did you leave it off? it appears to be the only one that is
100% consistent with the xTalk construct..... Could it be you agree
with me at some level?
Put x into var is a right assignment command. Not the same thing.
The whole thread is about a left assignment operator and the desire
to conceptually have a left assignment as an extension of the
language. And, yes, I do agree with you at some level, just not the
way you argued for your point. I tend to take an argument to the
extreme opposite position in order to discover the core issue. It
makes everyone (including myself) think more clearly. I also test my
code with values of "-infinity", -1,0,1,"+infinity",empty. I find
the flaws faster with the edge conditions.
Finally...
You just don't get it ;-)
I can't say I can get it into your head, though I can put it into
your head.
Perhaps Jim gets it now.
... telling someone their argument is inconsistent or that they
don't get it when it appears you maybe didn't actually listen to/
read what they were saying does little to build your credibility.
Following the same with a condescending cute smiley does not help.
This list is a great place for constructive discussion and it
should stay that way. Keep your personal comments to yourself.. and
I'll be lighter on the " ...some renegade variable is off filling
itself with data..." comments.
I guess I was a bit too obscure. The ;-) was the clue that the
statements were an example of get, put, gets syntax and a
lighthearted jab not meant to be taken too literally:
You just don't "get it", because "get it" is a no op.
I can't say I can "get it into" your head, because "get...into" is
bad syntax mixing left and right assignment, showing the difference
between get and put.
Perhaps Jim gets it now... new syntax of left assignment that is
English like syntax.
However, from the various replies to my gets suggestion, I don't
think gets is the best choice for a left assignment for Transcript
because of the lack of imperative. In BASIC the LET was the
imperative to LET var=x. The LET was redundant from a parsing point
of view, so eventually fell away. So in Transcript left assignment
might be better stated using the familiar syntax: set var to x
The get command becomes the shortcut equivelent of: set it to
So you see Jim, now I get it!
I have always been bothered by the left right reversal between
setting parameters (just another type of container), and putting into
variables. I have mistyped setting the parameter many times using
the form: put x into the parameter of y. The syntax is not ambiguous
as far as I can tell. Perhaps both set and put syntaxes should be
regularized to allow either, and relegate parameters to the ordinary
family of containers. At least allow the setting of variables even
if putting into parameters is kept exclusive.
Comments?
Dennis
_______________________________________________
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-revolution
