<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7638.1">
<TITLE>RE: [chuck-users] ChucK Inconsistencies...</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>> (0.0) => spork ~ doit; // not valid<BR>
>> spork ~ (0.0) => doit; // not valid<BR>
>> spork ~ doit(0.0);<BR>
<BR>
> Hmm, interesting. We should discuss this more, as we<BR>
want flexibility, but we should take care to keep things<BR>
somewhat clear. The second line seems more reasonable<BR>
than the first, and is consistent. We will leave this<BR>
for the upcoming spork update to add and fix spork<BR>
functionality.<BR>
<BR>
Hmmmmm, in my opinion even the second line is confusing. The ChucK operater denotes action or singal flow and to me in the second line the "spork" word is what should be seen as the thing causing the action. If we want something like this I think it should be seen as a speciffic form of ChucKing, much like "@=>" or "+=>" and it would be more natural to have something along the lines of;<BR>
<BR>
(0.0) ~=> doit;<BR>
<BR>
Here it would be a new operator that like the others sends data to a target (in this case a new shred). That seems quite natural to me while the second option above has two bits that basically denote the same thing; data is being send. This seems needlessly verbose to me which would be a bad thing for live coding.<BR>
<BR>
Or I could be missing something, I din't quite considder this for as long as one should before one starts typing but then again that in itself seems quite ChucKian in a way.... :¬)<BR>
<BR>
Yours,<BR>
Kas.</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>