| issues with property terminal [message #538169] |
Sat, 05 June 2010 20:55  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi,
Another change that I am contemplating is the syntax for properties,
currently it is $QID e.g. $this.is.a.property, this is a problem since
properties can be used in expressions, and one of things you may want to
do is to invoke a member function on a string property.
As an example $this.is.a.property.size() results in a call on the value
of the property "this.is.a.property.size", whereas the code
$this.is.a.property .size() performs the call.
I can think of several ways to handle this - the simplest is to change
the terminal so there is an ending delimiter.
Either:
$this.is.a.property$
or
${this.is.a.property}
I like the later, as it is more clear that the ${ } is syntax to
reference the property, and it is a commonly used construct.
- henrik
|
|
|
|
| Re: issues with property terminal [message #538233 is a reply to message #538210] |
Sun, 06 June 2010 19:19  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Fixed in Head.
- henrik
On 6/6/10 3:06 PM, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> On 2010-06-06 02:55, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
>> Either:
>> $this.is.a.property$
>>
>> or
>>
>> ${this.is.a.property}
>>
>> I like the later, as it is more clear that the ${ } is syntax to
>> reference the property, and it is a commonly used construct.
>>
> I agree. Let's use the latter. I belive that in a unix shell, you can
> use both $foo and ${foo}. The former can be used when there is no
> ambiguity such as the need to distinguish:
>
> ${foo}bar
>
> from
>
> $foobar
>
> I'm not much in favor of that though. It's better to have one canonical
> way to express property expansion.
>
> - thomas
|
|
|
| Re: issues with property terminal [message #608332 is a reply to message #538169] |
Sun, 06 June 2010 09:06 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
On 2010-06-06 02:55, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
> Either:
> $this.is.a.property$
>
> or
>
> ${this.is.a.property}
>
> I like the later, as it is more clear that the ${ } is syntax to
> reference the property, and it is a commonly used construct.
>
I agree. Let's use the latter. I belive that in a unix shell, you can
use both $foo and ${foo}. The former can be used when there is no
ambiguity such as the need to distinguish:
${foo}bar
from
$foobar
I'm not much in favor of that though. It's better to have one canonical
way to express property expansion.
- thomas
|
|
|
| Re: issues with property terminal [message #608334 is a reply to message #538210] |
Sun, 06 June 2010 19:19 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Fixed in Head.
- henrik
On 6/6/10 3:06 PM, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> On 2010-06-06 02:55, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
>> Either:
>> $this.is.a.property$
>>
>> or
>>
>> ${this.is.a.property}
>>
>> I like the later, as it is more clear that the ${ } is syntax to
>> reference the property, and it is a commonly used construct.
>>
> I agree. Let's use the latter. I belive that in a unix shell, you can
> use both $foo and ${foo}. The former can be used when there is no
> ambiguity such as the need to distinguish:
>
> ${foo}bar
>
> from
>
> $foobar
>
> I'm not much in favor of that though. It's better to have one canonical
> way to express property expansion.
>
> - thomas
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.07804 seconds
Home