Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Guenter Geiger hat gesagt: // Guenter Geiger wrote:
Let me explain: In order to convert lists to messages I normally use message boxes with $ arguments. E.g if I send a list "foo 2" to [set $1 $2( it will construct a message that reads [set foo 2(, similar with a 3 element list and $1,$2,$3. Now, my proposal is to introduce a $@ dollar symbol which accepts lists of any length, this way it is not necessary to know the length of a list before converting it into a message.
and since there are some parallels between message-$-args and object-$-args, having a "$@" would also mean that you could have argument-lists of arbitrary length in abstractions in abstractions. [l $1 $2 $3 $4 $5] is not the same as [l $@].
so yes, i would vote for $@ and $# (well, the latter can be made with a general $@ and [l.length])
(and speaking of this i would also appreciate a mechanism to allow $args within! a symbol. something like $1_$2_$3 (i wouldn't mind ${1}_${2}_${3} (we could use some other bracket instead of the curly ones, they just bashed through my mind))
mfg.a.sdr IOhannes