Re: Dictionary Inconsistency?
Re: Dictionary Inconsistency?
- Subject: Re: Dictionary Inconsistency?
- From: pscott <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 20:16:50 -0700
On 6/9/2014 5:51 PM, Shane Stanley wrote:
On 10 Jun 2014, at 10:20 am, pscott <email@hidden> wrote:
But, wait. The classes are indicated by a little square, purple box with a "C" inside. Here, the graph does not call "process" a class. It calls it an element, as indicated by a little square, yellow-ish box with an "E" inside. But there is no element called "process," anywhere.
An individual element is simply an instance of a class.
No argument. Makes perfect sense.
There is, as the definition clearly states, an element called "processes" that contains an array of objects, of class "process."
No, the array is not "an element"; the array is a collection of elements. (Look in the Login Items Suite: the application has "Elements" consisting of (only) "login items" -- if your argument held, that should say "Element".)
What we have here is a failure (of mine) to communicate. I am not saying
(nor trying to say) the definition should say "element." I am saying the
graph should say "elements."
So, I don't see how the little square, yellow box called "process" is correct, and I still think the graph is wrong. Where is the error in my understanding?
Being too literal, perhaps. The list of elements at the bottom is listing the element collections. They are what you add and remove individual elements from. The table is showing what each element is.
THAT is the crux of the matter. The table (or as I have called it, the
graph), appears to be showing what is directly accessible and by whom. I
can directly access the commands of a suite, and the properties of a
class using the names shown in the table. I cannot directly access the
elements of a class as marked by a yellow "E" using the name in the
table. And yet, I can directly access the properties and what are CALLED
elements of a class using the names shown in the definition! That is an
inconsistency. A rip in the continuum.
I can use your explanation that the yellow "E" does not mean a
collection (of elements) called "process", but rather what some
collection whose name isn't shown (in the table) contains elements of
the class "process". Or, more generally, "E" doesn't mean a collection
named x, it means some collection exists having elements of class x.
This makes the table far less useful as a quick reference than if "E"
meant a collection (of elements) named x.
However, I would then have to say that the term "elements" in the
definition (as opposed to the table) would more properly be called
"collections." The names given there are the names of collections of
elements.
In any case, I'm beginning to understand the madness. The term
"elements" in the definition and the use of "E" in the table both poorly
express their intended meaning. However, even accepting these terms for
what they really represent, I still feel that the names associated with
the yellow "E" would be more useful (as a quick reference) using the
name of a collection rather than the name of an element of an unnamed
collection. The definition can always be referenced for more information.
Paul
--
Paul Scott
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
AppleScript-Users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
Archives: http://lists.apple.com/archives/applescript-users
This email sent to email@hidden