Re: fun with records and keywords
Re: fun with records and keywords
- Subject: Re: fun with records and keywords
- From: has <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:26:56 +0100
Brennan wrote:
>
> I found the following oddly amusing (maybe I've been at the computer too
>
> long...?):
>
>
>
> set x to {class:string, contents:"test"}
...
>
>
>
> It looks like my properties are overriding the object's own when I query
>
> them. Bizarre. Is that what's expected?
>
>
>
> Useful? Safe to use?
>
>
Yes. This is acceptable and expected. Sort of.
>
>
It's not smart to create a new structure and give it a class property
>
which has the same value as an existing class, because things can get very
>
confusing. 'Real' strings can do a whole bunch of other things that your
>
little record can't. Your call.
Yeah, thinking it over I'm inclined to agree with this.
>
>From ASLG:
>
>
"The Class property of a record can be modified it is not read-only".
>
>
(page 75)
Ahh, silly me has only read up to page 74. Note to self: RTFM more often... ;)
Thanks,
has