I really think the problem is simple. (Sorry if I missunderstand part of the discussion but is complicated to me understand some English styles).

We have values and referencies. An in ChucK we have one assignment operator for values and other for referencies.

In ChucK is not possible to create references to primitive tipes.

int @i;

[Untitled]:line(1): cannot declare references (@) of primitive type 'int'...

[Untitled]:line(1): ...(primitive types: 'int', 'float', 'time', 'dur')

The problem here (i think) is that the reference assignment operator acts like a value assignement operator too.

Different is the case when the assignment opertor acts over objects (being UGens) that is the ChucK operator.

We have one "massive overloaded chuck operator" and a reference assignement operator that haven't defined it behavior on primitive values.

El 01/06/2009, a las 10:21, Kassen escribió:

Lucas;
Hi

This kind of things seem to be due to a lack of development in documentation and/or language.

In this case I suppose the issue is with a disagreement on what proper behaviour is. I'd rather have a open discussion about that than have everything determined by a language specification. When the language specification was written we all had far less of a coherent idea of what ChucK was or should be than we now do.

I might still have posted about this if the specifications explicitly demanded the current behaviour without a explanation of *why* it is this way.

I suppose I agree with you but discussions like this will lead to developments and specifications. I might go as far as saying there will be little development if we don't debate.

Yours,
Kas.
_______________________________________________
chuck-users mailing list
chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu
https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users