FWIW, I did stumble over an example where => and @=> differ. I typed noisemakers[x] => Noisemaker @ current_noisemaker; which tried to patch noisemakers[x] into a null unit generator, producing some strange runtime error. Of course what I intended was: noisemakers[x] @=> Noisemaker @ current_noisemaker; So sometimes you just have to ask "please" to get ChucK to do the right thing. - Rob On 31 May 2009, at 15:37, Tom Lieber wrote:
I don't think there are any satisfying reasons for the current behavior. File native type references (int @ x) as a feature request if it's not already. :)
I think @=> is an unnecessary operator. I like the description from way back that the "@" means "please."
-- Tom Lieber http://AllTom.com/ _______________________________________________ chuck-users mailing list chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users