set the layer of group

[FourthWorld]

Look up "target" in the dictionary, there are two entries. One is the function, the other is a keyword. It's the keyword you want.

I don't doubt you, and I appreciate the pointer to the Dictionary entry. But it's weird. No less so by the choice to explain it away as "keyword", a sort of shorthand that winks to the reader as "We don't really understand how this fits into the language, so we're using the most generic term we have", handling a token ambiguity by assigning it a categorical ambiguity.

This discussion prompted me to wonder how the HC team described it. In HyperTalk 2.2: The Book they have no parenthetic form described in the main text*, only "the target" and "target", both handled under one entry categorized as a function.

Most of the entry is about "the target", and the only thing written there about "target" is:

If the target is a field or a button, the special form target return the contents of the field or button.

Given the oddity of the "target" form, I'd wager it might have been a bug that got left in and eventually rationalized for its utility.

I can imagine an internal debate about whether "the target" should return the object name or the object contents, not entirely wacky when we consider how hard they worked to make accessing field contents feel like natural language. So maybe both forms were implemented for testing, the shorter form a temporary placeholder while they were deciding what to do. When they finally decided to make "the target" uniformly return the object name rather than the contents, perhaps they just forgot to back out "target", and when discovered they just documented it with a one-liner tucked away in the entry for "the target" and moved on hoping no one would think too hard about it.

But here we are. I can't not think about it. Because it's weird. Maybe weird enough to have achieved a closer match to natural language than even they'd intended, with all the gotchas, "sometimes" rules, and long-forgotten etymology of English.

* There is a footnote at the end of the entry which says: "In versions before 2.0, you can also use the form target(). However, because of a bug, the form target() causes an error when the target is a field."

[richmond62]

But it's weird.

Not really, as LiveCode contains quite a few inconsistencies (and, to be fair, you would be hard put
to find any programming language that does not contain inconsistencies).

What is possibly overlooked by some folk is that computer languages, while developed to talk to coldly logical
computers are not designed by coldly logical computers, but by warm illogical human beings; so expecting
a programming language not to exhibit inconsistencies is a bit silly.

I have, in the past, pointed out that 'having one's eye on the prize' can result in other things
being overlooked.

with all the gotchas, "sometimes" rules, and long-forgotten etymology of English

That is one of the reasons why other programming languages don't look 'natural' insofar as they do not
attempt to approach human language (as LiveCode does): obviously you cannot have it both ways:
they easy and clear scripts of LiveCode and the logical but opaque scripts of, say, ALGOL:

"procedure Absmax(a) Size:(n, m) Result:(y) Subscripts:(i, k);
value n, m; array a; integer n, m, i, k; real y;
begin
integer p, q;
y := 0; i := k := 1;
for p := 1 step 1 until n do
for q := 1 step 1 until m do
if abs(a[p, q]) > y then
begin y := abs(a[p, q]);
i := p; k := q
end
end Absmax"

And, even that, does not look totally non-human.

[FourthWorld]

Natural languages are for expressing the richness of the human experience to other people.

Programming languages are lists of instructions for machines.

I don't mind when they're different. They serve very different purposes.

[richmond62]

They do serve different purposes, but as both types of language are man-made they
are prone to human inconsistency.

In a perfect world computer languages would not contain inconsistencies, which might
make things easier for programmers: but can you imagine how nauseating a perfect
world would be.

The other day I found an unfortunate and unsuspected inconsistency in my Devawriter Pro,
and had to spend about 6 hours removing it and issuing new builds: and that was 100% my
fault and I am not going to be so cheap as to blame that on LiveCode. What it did do was
make me realise I shouldn't be such a smug whatsit re my Devawriter Pro and make
several unfounded claims about it, just as many people do about many things elsewhere.

Now if I cannot produce something entirely consistent myself I really don't have a leg to
stand on if I criticise LiveCode (or anything else) for being inconsistent.

[dunbarx]

Richard.

You are essentially saying that "target" could (should?) be replaced with "the value of the target"?

Craig

[stam]

I must say that would be a lot less helpful.
Almost always I use the target because I want to trigger an action based on what is clicked, not because I need the content of the clicked object,which in any case is available if you know what you clicked…

Leave the target alone!

[dunbarx]

Stam.

I don't think anyone here would touch "the target", one of the most unique features of xTalk, and a testimony to the genius of HC (and LC), in that it embodies the "live" aspect of such programs.

Same for "target", that is, er, the target of this thread.

Leave them both alone; neither ever confused me, though they might a very new user. I use both all the time. So powerful, compact and convenient.

Craig

[stam]

My comment was made tongue-in-cheek in case that wasn't clear

[dunbarx]

@Stam. I was not addressing you in particular. I am actually surprised that this discussion exists at all, that something as lovely as "target" is even considered being placed in the dock, likely on trumped-up charges.

@Richmond. The way you replied about my pontificating seems as if you had someone else in particular in mind. Ever since Amthony Black went away, I cannot imagine who else might qualify.

Craig

[FourthWorld]

I am actually surprised that this discussion exists at all, that something as lovely as "target" is even considered being placed in the dock, likely on trumped-up charges.

For my own part, I recognize that no matter how anomalous "target" is as a shorthand for "the text of the target", my only disciplinary action is directed at myself: I will forget that I ever heard of it, as part of a process that also includes exercise and leafy greens, to postpone any risk of dementia.

It's actually impressive that Dr Raney showed the thoroughness to implement that HC oddity, erring as he so often did on the side of completeness where practical.

And it's been around so long that there's no value in suggesting deprecation.

For myself, it's like the "the" form of functions: it exists, but not consistently, so I rarely use it and even more rarely teach it.

[jacque]

And it's been around so long that there's no value in suggesting deprecation.

Not only that, but since no one apparently remembers it but me, there's probably no reason to do anything with it at all. No one uses it.

[dunbarx]

Jacque.

I use it all the time. As I mentioned a handful of posts up: "So powerful, compact and convenient."

And short. I suspect that Richard intends to pretend it does not exist because of its odd form. Nowhere else in HC or LC, apart form a variable name, can one, say, "get target". That is because it is a keyWord, not a function or property.

Craig