Re: Hash arrays [was: does property exists in a record]
Re: Hash arrays [was: does property exists in a record]
- Subject: Re: Hash arrays [was: does property exists in a record]
- From: Paul Berkowitz <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 11:52:23 -0700
I'm writing because (for once!), I agree 100% with Ed, on all points. Well
put, Ed! I'd just add that Tim's suggestion of having a new data type -
associative arrays - if enough people want this, rather than changing
records into them, would be a better course. But first, let's get those
whose filters for AppleScript lists and records, as a higher priority.
Paul
On 8/14/01 11:27 AM, "Stockly, Ed" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> AA>> I've been feeling thwarted a lot lately. But language bugs are mainly
>
> responsible for that not just a lack of a few features.
>
>
>> TB>>Seriously, what bugs in AppleScript? They never hit me in my work.
>
>
There are bugs and then there are bugs.
>
>
What few bugs there are in AppleScript are fairly easy to identify and work
>
around and, thankfully, not the source of serious problems.
>
>
The term "language bugs" I believe is an unfair characterization. The
>
AppleScript language was designed different (differently) than most other
>
programming and scripting languages and some see these differences as
>
"language bugs."
>
>
There are also a number of bugs in the AppleScript implementation of a number
>
of apps (including the Finder, and other Apple software) that can be very
>
frustrating.
>
>
>> TB>>Also, what else would people like to be able to do that they cannot do
>
>> now
>
(apart from building user interfaces)?
>
>
Printing without user prompts would be nice ; )
>
>
>>> From what I can see, the clamor for them (associative arrays) here seems to
>
>>> be limited to a relatively small number of players. Maybe the rest are just
>
>>> silently nodding, but I suspect not.
>
>
Well, I guess I'm nodding. But not because I want to write some highly
>
complex scripting algorithms.
>
>
>>> Maybe if I had them, I'd think they were the greatest thing.
>
>
I can think of a number of examples that would apply in real world scripting
>
that are pretty simple and straight forward and would make the scripting
>
learning curve much easier, particularly manipulating records on-the-fly, like
>
getting a list of customized features in a Quark page setup for printer X.
>
>
>>>> But I do know that every item that gets priority does so at something
>
>>>> else's expense. From that perspective, I'd like to see some argument for
>
>>>> why they'd improve the life of the average scripter.
>
>
My feeling is that if lists and records acted like proper AppleScript objects
>
and could be addressed by whose clauses and could be easily manipulated
>
(deleting items, sorting by various keys) and, in the case of records, if
>
labels could easily be coerced to and from text strings, then they would be
>
far more useful to the average scripter. If that is a benefit of changing
>
them to associative arrays then I think it's important and I'm all for it. If
>
not, then I'll stop nodding.
>
>
ES
>
_______________________________________________
>
applescript-users mailing list
>
email@hidden
>
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
>
--
Paul Berkowitz