(hmm, this message is a bit old, but it didn't seem to get sent...)
On Jul 21, 2005, at 4:02 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>> [int] isn't an atom type either, and it behaves the same as [f],
>> [symbol], and
>> [pointer]. I think that the storage type should be consistent and
>> need not
>> only apply to atoms. [anything] would also be handy.
>
> Hey, btw, [anything] could be exactly like list except that it would
> treat
> the selector as part of the list it is processing. What do you think of
> this?
That would be a handy object, though I am not sure that it should
called [anything]. I have to look at how other objects like [trigger]
and [route] handle "anything". It should be consistent with the other
key objects.
> Btw, one thing that would be different between [list],[anything] vs the
> four other, is that you can't put initial object content of the former
> in
> the constructor: you can't write [list 1 2 3] to mean [list]<-"1 2
> 3"<-[loadbang] because [list] already reserves $1 for another purpose.
I assume you mean Miller's proposed [list]. If Miller's proposed
functionality was split into individual objects, and [list] made into a
storage object, then [list 1 2 3] would work. That makes the most
sense to me.
.hc
________________________________________________________________________
____
As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and
this we should do freely and generously.
- Benjamin Franklin