• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: set myList to myList & ...(Digest, Vol 2, Issue 493)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: set myList to myList & ...(Digest, Vol 2, Issue 493)


  • Subject: Re: set myList to myList & ...(Digest, Vol 2, Issue 493)
  • From: Jonathan Levi MD <email@hidden>
  • Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:05:52 -0400

With all respect to has and Paul, and with no wish to be tendentious:

has quotes a previous writer (himself, possibly: I don't know):

 >>>...you've misread the problem. This has nothing to do with set vs
 >>>copy. It's about the concatenation operator not returning a new
 >>>object in certain situations. Example: [...]

However, in the example that followed and is reproduced below, the comment "Wrong!" by (a second) previous writer has to do to with value-vs-reference, not concatenation:


 >>set l to {1}                           (1)
 >>set a to l & {}                        (2)
 >>set b to {} & l                        (3)
 >>                                       (4)
 >>set l's item 1 to 2                    (5)
 >>log a --> {1}                          (6)
 >>log b --> {2} -- Wrong! Should be {1}  (7)

The second writer doesn't object that a concatenated value is missing somewhere: He objects that the value shown by "log b" in line (7) is the wrong value, albeit with the right number of list elements. The question of the "wrong" value of {2} vs. the "right" value of {1} is indeed addressed by assignment to l (in line (3)) by reference, rather than the value.


If there is a failure of concatenation, please show me where it is, with line number and expected result. Other subscribers will also find a more detailed explanation helpful, I am sure: it has long been my observation that if I'm in a group and I don't understand something, there's generally at least one other person in the group who doesn't understand it, either.

Paul, if you find that my comments have been made irrelevant because someone else has replied first, or for any other reason, please feel free to ignore them. Apple and many other list maintainers have made the digest form available to subscribers for good reason; I don't see squeezing my comments in ahead of someone else's as sufficient reason to switch.

Regards,

Jonathan
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


  • Prev by Date: Re: Really dumb question . . .
  • Next by Date: Re: set myList to myList & ...(Digest, Vol 2, Issue 493)
  • Previous by thread: Re: tiger problem with keychain scripting....
  • Next by thread: Re: set myList to myList & ...(Digest, Vol 2, Issue 493)
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread