Question regarding scripting support in OO3

[Michael Terry]

On May 6, 2004, at 9:29 AM, Timothy J. Wood wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 5, 2004, at 08:36  PM, Michael Terry wrote:
>> This is how I actually expected it to work. I know the canonical 
>> object specifier is usually supposed to be the least fragile, but the 
>> above is the way Finder handles it, so it may be most intuitive to 
>> frequent AS users. In Finder's case, there aren't IDs per se, but the 
>> alias type functions as an ID.
>
>   Actually, I'm seeing no 'ID'-ness in Finders references at all.  If 
> I do 'folder of front window' I get back something that is like 
> 'folder "name1" of folder "name2" ...' and then if I do:
>
> 	set MyFolder to folder of front window
> 	set name of MyFolder to "x"
> 	properties of MyFolder
>
>   I get the same busted reference problem that OO2 has with moving 
> rows.  Maybe this is what you are saying?


Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Finder's normal references are like OO's 
current references, but if you need something that behaves like IDs 
would, you use an alias. Finder never returns an alias itself, though.

>
>> The point being that in a lot of common scripts, IDs aren't 
>> necessary. It's just that where they are necessary, they're 
>> absolutely critical, so in those cases, a little extra effort is 
>> nothing to lose sleep > over.
>
>   That's what I hoped.  It sounds like the index based identifiers, 
> removing editing on the flattened 'rows' and the ability to do 
> 'reference to row id "xxx" of MyDoc' should fit the bill and should be 
> robustly implementable.  Let me know if I've misunderstood :)
>


Yeah, it sounds like this is the best compromise, considering 
everything. And it's how I figured it would work, so I'd be happy, 
personally. :)


Mike