What happens when you execute:
 
true => lisaLeft.record;
 
is that you assign “"the value of true to the object property lisaLeft.record, but because of the way the chuck operator is overloaded, this is converted to:
 
lisaLeft.record(true);
 
However if you do something like
 
<<<listLeft.record>>>;
or <<<startRecording>>>;
 
where “startRecording” has the value of the function you defined, then you’ll get the address of the function object itself. So, I imagine then if you simply execute
 
startRecording;
 
nothing should happen – its the same as executing
 
24;
 
- the parser just throws it away. If the function you defined had arguments, then executing
 
startRecording;
 
would give you a compilation error because it expected arguments and didn’t get any.
 
-- Rich
 
 
 
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 5:21 PM
Subject: [chuck-users] Forgetting parenthesis in function calls yields noerror
 
Hello list!
 
I just spent a little time scratching my head over these little functions:
 
 
fun void startRecording() {
<<< "Record! ", index >>>;
true => lisaLeft.record;
true => lisaRight.record;
}
 
fun void toggle() {
!active => active;
paintActive();
if (active) {
startRecording;
}
}
 
Everything seemed to be in order, I added a lot of print statements, and could for the life of me figure out why the startRecording function wasn't executed from toggle(). There was no error message, everything seemed to be in order. Then I peered more closely and saw that I had forgotten to put parenthesis in the function call:
 
startRecording();
 
After that everything started working. My question is: shouldn't a function name all by itself result in an error of some kind?
 
Cheers,
 
Stefan Blixt
 
--
Release me, insect, or I will destroy the Cosmos!

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