AW: [Xotcl] destroy invoked by object move?

[Gustaf Neumann]

Kristoffer Lawson schrieb:
> It's only really necessary for variables which are linked to other 
> systems as for callbacks you can generally do f.ex.:
>
> after 100 [list [self] doStuff]
>
> which is what I actually do. I mean, presumably the problem with using 
> a method by its direct namespace is also that filters get avoided, or? 
> (at least I think it was that way at some point in XOTcl's history). 
> That, to me, would mean it's not a good method except for very 
> specific cases.
please, check more carefully, what has been posted and discussed. Koen's 
original "myproc"
(renamed to "mymethod") is NOT about prepending a namespace prefix to a 
method name,
but is nothing more than a shortform for "list [self] ..."). In your 
example one would be able
to register the callback to after with

    after 100 [mymethod foo 1 2 3]

or by the method  variant

    after 100 [my callback foo 1 2 3]

Since the idiom [list [self] .... ] is used for registering callbacks,
naming suggestions like "methodName" or variants
with "namespace" are not appropriate.

i do not like the &-suggestions for the xotcl-core, since it looks
like an operator, not like a name. The &-operator is not
about fully qualifying a name, but about providing a reference
in general.

i get the impression that adding these cmds/methods do not reduce
significantly the clarity. myvar/myvarname makes sense for the
snitters.

-gustaf neumann