Talk:Miscellaneous ASH Features

TODO:

All of the bolded script types need to become next-level headings, to make it easier to search and link directly to "sometypeScript" etc. --StDoodle (#1059825) 16:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to handle that, since "script" neither needs or has its own page (it is, after all, meaningless without "notify"). I'm thinking the "script" page should just be a redirect to the heading on the "notify" page, but not listed.

Anyone with further thoughts, or other miscellaneous pseudo-functions, please chime in. --StDoodle (#1059825) 02:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, since the notify and scripts are basicly one thing --Icon315 03:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I believe that script needs its own page because people find commands in scripts and look them up here. They should be able to believe that they can always do that. Therefore script needs its own page and should be referenced here even though it is always used in conjunction with notify. Naturally that connection should be highlighted on the page for script. --Bale 09:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • script doesn't mean much outside of its use with notify; however, if the page exists, and redirects to a subheading on the notify page (as happens when you click on a data type on a function page), a user will go to the "right" spot, and search will work as intended, so this is what I'm leaning towards. --StDoodle (#1059825) 09:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • A search for script will now be directed to information about the command so it satisfies me. --Bale 10:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is probably the best (or least-worst?) page to reference the "comments" page from as well (which only needs syntaxhighlight-tag-ification, really).--StDoodle (#1059825) 04:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Emphatically yes. Good point. --Bale 09:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved the discussion stuff to the talk page, 'cause... yeah. :P --StDoodle (#1059825) 08:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in a ??? step if it isn't BEFORE profit. :( --StDoodle (#1059825) 00:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that profitScript even exists -- how the heck would that work? (On that other hand, there has been a profit.ash...) --Heeheehee 05:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Relax, it was just a joke. Probably should have left it off the page, I know, but I was very tired at the time. I just realized after writing part of a list that I didn't have something I was trying to think of, so naturally I wrote "???" followed by "Profit." Ah, internet humor. --StDoodle (#1059825) 15:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, another thing we need to figure out how to add: calling functions method-style. I'm not a programmer, so my ability to explain this is limited. :( --StDoodle (#1059825) 06:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you are asking for. Please explain. --Bale 10:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ie if you have a string "foo" declared, foo.print() vs print(foo).

What I do know;

• whatever is in front of the .function_name() is used as the first parameter

What I don't know;

• Is there any exception to the above? Are all overloaded functions able to intelligently handle the appropriate datatypes?
• Are there performance differences?
• Is there a better way to refer to using foo.do_thing() than "method style" (again, little formal training)

--StDoodle (#1059825) 15:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no exceptions or performance differences. It always works, including with overloaded functions. The only difference is programming style, just like decisions about much whitespace to use, positioning of curly brackets or breaking long lines into two lines. I'd refer to it as "function calling style". --Bale 23:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)