Re: Need rope for SOAP
Re: Need rope for SOAP
- Subject: Re: Need rope for SOAP
- From: has <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:14:54 +0000
John W Baxter wrote:
>
At 14:29 -0500 1/13/2002, Tim Bumgarner wrote:
>
>One reason that you might see a difference when running inside of Studio
>
>versus Script Editor, is that Studio has a much larger set of
>
>terminologies, and therefore more likely to run into a conflict. Looking
>
>at your soap call, you might want to use '|parameters|' instead of
>
>'parameters' as that is a defined term to the 'call method' command.
>
>
Hmmm...possible feature request...
>
>
Would AppleScript Studio scripting benefit from an extension to the
>
considering/ignoring commands:
>
>
ignoring Studio commands
>
...
>
end ignoring
Unfortunately, I don't think keyword conflicts are a problem that's unique
to ASS. :(
Just as a thought though, shouldn't the editor defer to the SOAP call here?
(i.e. "He who is most specific, wins.")
<2c>
I'm not familiar with the Developer side of things, so I don't know who (if
anyone) lays down the law on what keywords each developer can or can't use,
in order to prevent collisions occurring. I daresay though that the more
applications, osaxen and editors come onto the market, the more frequently
these sort of things are likely to occur. (The worst scenario would be if
everyone simply crosses fingers and just _hopes_ that they won't conflict
with anyone else, as opposed to actively taking steps to avoid it. I'm
hoping that's not it, of course.)
Perhaps if Tim B or anyone else could give us lowly scripters a hint of the
bigger picture, perhaps it'd help us understand better how these things are
done and what potential issues to watch for.
<4c>
Incidentally, I think that at least part of the problem is with scripting
addition calls all being squished into a single shared namespace - this
obviously has advantages, but is a little risky too. i.e. If AS had started
out by using something like:
tell osax "Standard Additions"
get ASCII character 33
end tell
for osaxen calls, I imagine a lot of osax-vs-everything-else conflict
issues simply wouldn't exist. [OTOH, you wouldn't have had the sense of
'transparency' that makes AS such an easy language for non-programmers to
get into in the first place.:/]
</4c>
Incidentally, I used to think that if I just used compound names for my
variables then I'd be safe enough (e.g. theFormat instead of format;
theParameter instead of parameter), but I've noticed recently that there
are one or two osaxen that use compound names for their keywords (there may
also be applications that do this as well).
This strikes me as a less-than-optimal practice: osaxen/application authors
have the ability to use multi-word keywords (and should take advantage of
this). It might be more reassuring if scripters could be confident that by
using compound names for their own variables and handler names they run 0%
risk of ever conflicting with additions, etc (which would always be using
single- or multi-word keywords). Just a thought.
</2c>
Whilst us lowly scripters don't like to think too much about what goes on
under the hood, many of our modern comforts do very much depend on
everything down there running smoothly. Perhaps someone can lend some
deeper insight to these matters...?
Cheers,
has