Re: [APROG] :notify()

• Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 07:33:32 PDT
• From:
  Quinn <quinn@vv.com>
• Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I may be wrong, but I recall reading long ago that :notify does what it does
to leave open the possibility of sending extra arguments.  :tell, on the
other hand, would have trouble parsing extra arguments (for example, those
to the builtin notify()), since it gobbles up all the args into tostr().

Besides, since it expects a complete string, any :notify method can be as
simple as 'return notify(this, @args);'.  It's the LEAN :TELL.

-Quinn
-http://www.bga.com/~quinn/


At 10:40 PM 7/29/96 PDT, Richard Godard wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Just a silly question. Is there any compelling reason for the :notify()
>verbs not to do a tostr(@args) ?
>Is it a technical, philosophical or historical reason?

• Re: [APROG] :notify()
• From: tom@mvision.com (Tom Ritchford)

• Prev: Re: [APROG] :notify()
• Next: Re: [APROG] :notify()
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows