Re: Attack of The Fifty-Foot Homonyms [Re: FileMaker Pro, get image by reference]
Re: Attack of The Fifty-Foot Homonyms [Re: FileMaker Pro, get image by reference]
- Subject: Re: Attack of The Fifty-Foot Homonyms [Re: FileMaker Pro, get image by reference]
- From: has <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:14:37 +0000
Paul Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> it even works in OS 10.2.2, although 'copy' in the Finder
>
>> Dictionary says :
>
>>
>
>> copy: (NOT AVAILABLE YET) Copy the selected items to the clipboard (the
>
>> Finder must be the front application)
>
>> copy
>
>
>
> Unrelated. See above. As the previous poster mentioned, the 'copy' in this
>
> case is the language keyword, not the application keyword. You've been
>
> fooled by 'copy' the homonym. The evil little sod is leering and jeering as
>
> we speak.
>
>
The previous poster was me, and I said it in the very message that you're
>
quoting, in fact, in the very next sentence that followed that quote, only
>
you decided to omit that bit to make a point at my expense. Gee, thanks.
>
It's fun learning from you, has, really it is.
Yayy, another misfire courtesy of me. It's a talent I have. Sorry about
that, and here's the post-mortem for those that care...
--
The "previous poster" was Andy Wylie (I think you misread that line), and
he got it right in saying "copy compiles as a language keyword", which is
the key to resolving this puzzle. It's the language's own 'copy foo to bar'
statement (p38 of ASLG), working in a similar fashion to 'set.
When acting on application object references:
tell [application]
set [reference] to [object] -- send 'core setd' event to app
copy [object] to [reference] -- send 'core clon' event to app
end tell
as opposed to:
tell [application]
set [variable] to [object] -- assign object to variable
copy [object] to [variable] -- assign (copy of) object to variable
end tell
Typical under-the-surface AppleScript shenanigans (intended to make things
simpler for the user... except sometimes it seems to cause more headaches
and confusion instead).
And then you said: "Evidently 'copy "file path" to "folder path"' is
actually a different sort
of copy than the one which is not available yet". And you were right. (You
didn't manage to identify which flavour of 'copy' it was, but you did note
there was a difference.) Guess which line I went and misread? Yup, that
one.
Ran through the sentence without paying attention, picked up on the
'coercion' bit at the end which wasn't quite right (both 'copy' and
'duplicate' send a coreclon event, but this hasn't anything to do with
coercion which is changing the type of a value), didn't think the rest
important, snipped it from the reply without another thought, etc. Really
careless of me, and I do apologise for any offence caused (certainly wasn't
my intent to make anyone look bad).
--
has
--
http://www.barple.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk -- The Little Page of AppleScripts
_______________________________________________
applescript-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.