• 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: Finder in processes false ?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Finder in processes false ?


  • Subject: Re: Finder in processes false ?
  • From: has <email@hidden>
  • Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:22:21 +0100

Christopher Nebel wrote:

>>Anyone can show me how dumb I am for not getting why this returns "false" ?
>>
>>tell application "System Events"
>>    set theProcesses to (list processes as list)
>[...]
>The more serious problem is that "list processes as list", while syntactically and semantically well-defined, doesn't do even remotely what you think it does. [1] This is about the point where Matt N. would advise you to go read a book and actually learn AppleScript instead of thinking that it's Just Like English and hoping for the best.

Indeed. However, to be fair to the OP, this is ultimately mostly AppleScript's fault for choosing a syntax that promotes high-level human readability at the cost of seriously obfuscating semantics (the underlying meaning). John Gruber gave an good example in his recent <http://daringfireball.net/2005/09/englishlikeness_monster> rant, comparing:

path of fonts folder of user domain

to:

path to fonts folder from user domain

Two expressions that have very similar syntax but very different semantics. A language with conventional Algol-ish syntax would use something like:

user_domain.fonts_folder.path

and

path_to(#fonts_folder, from=#user_domain)

Not as pretty, and hard to make any kind of sense of if you don't already understand what all those additional cryptic-looking symbols mean. However, it does have the big advantage that the semantics of each expression are completely explicit: it's immediately obvious from the source code alone what's a command, what's an argument name, what's a property, what's an enumeration; no expert knowledge of hundreds of language/osax/application-installed keywords required to reach the same conclusion.

(BTW, this is why I think completely dropping dialects was a big loss, if not outright mistake. While foreign language dialects may have been impractical, the ability to switch between conventional English and an alternative Algol-style syntax would have provided users with the best of both worlds: high-level grokability from the former, semantic clarity from the latter.)

A modest solution would be to improve AS's pretty printer so it uses different styles to distinguish between commands, properties, elements, types and enums, rather than using a single style for all as it currently does. If anyone wants to file a feature request to that effect then be my guest.

has
--
http://freespace.virgin.net/hamish.sanderson/
 _______________________________________________
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

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Finder in processes false ?
      • From: Christopher Nebel <email@hidden>
    • Re: Finder in processes false ?
      • From: Martin Orpen <email@hidden>
    • Re: Finder in processes false ?
      • From: Doug McNutt <email@hidden>
  • Prev by Date: special characters in file names
  • Next by Date: Re: Maybe OT: getting general information of a pdf file
  • Previous by thread: Re: Finder in processes false ?
  • Next by thread: Re: Finder in processes false ?
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread