Yes. That sounds right :=)
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart Malin" <stuart at ossayu dot com>
To: "REALbasic Network Users Group" <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware
dot com>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Self and Me: Function vs Keyword
> Must've been a timing issue of the emails getting out ...
> I presume that since you wrote this you've seen Aaron's reply.
>
> Technically, they are keywords. I guess it could be said that they
> "supply" a value, rather than "return" a value.
>
>
> On Sunday, February 29, 2004, at 03:01 PM, CV wrote:
>
> > Good question. I don't know the intent of a documentation change.
> >
> > However, I believe that self and me are both built-in functions and
> > keywords. They are functions because they provide a return (an instance
> > reference), and of course all function names are keywords.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stuart Malin" <stuart at ossayu dot com>
> > To: "REALbasic Network Users Group"
> > <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 3:46 PM
> > Subject: Self and Me: Function vs Keyword
> >
> >
> >> I know this is an unnecessarily detailed query , but I like to
> >> understand things well.
> >>
> >> Prior to 5.5, Self and Me were described in the Lang Ref as
> >> Functions.
> >>
> >> In the 5.5 Lang Ref they are described as Keywords.
> >> t
> >> I know it likely makes no difference to the code we write, but if the
> >> folks at
> >> REALsoftware saw fit to change the descriptions, is there a reason
> >> other
> >> than accuracy about how Self and Me are actually implemented?
> >>
> >> I presume that the compiler does its magic with these; that there are
> >> no
> >> built-in callable functions by these names. Is this right?
- - -
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|