Re: MTF syntax

Piyawadee Sukaviriya ([email protected])
Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:45:38 -0400 (EDT)

>
> Yes, we noticed the same potential source of confusion. After giving it one
> minute thought I decided that at least I was willing to live with it.
> However, more that one minute of thought might be worth it to come up with a
> better syntax.

The syntax is getting to be like a programming language. Anything which is
commonly used in many languages could be adopted. If we keep letting go
of these little things one thing at a time, it'll accumulate. For me, this is
far more important than arguing about whether we would use underscore
in variable names or not. We already spent a lot of time on the latter
earlier on in the project, I think we should deal with all potential problems
with mtf syntax whenever we run into one. The MTF syntax didn't start out
as a blessing so we should be more careful with it.

>
> How about the following. It seems that the problem only comes up when we have
> values that are collections. We could use [] to refer to elements of
> collections, so that your example would look like this:
>
> Generate_Report.subtask_connection.subtasks[Specify_account].xxx = value;

I think this will do. It looks like a general rule would be no object name
can appear after a dot.

--Noi