Once again syntactic sugar only creates confusion.

["Daniel Ajoy" <da.ajoy@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm talking about the business of 

t1, blabla

instead of 

talkto "t1 blabla


I had adviced someone the following:


========================
The following seems to have a repetitive pattern that 
varies just a little:

when [touching? "t1 "t2] [setlives lives - 1 t1, seth 0 fd 30]
when [touching? "t1 "t3] [setlives lives - 1 t1, seth 0 fd 30]
when [touching? "t1 "t4] [setlives lives - 1 t1, seth 0 fd 30]
when [touching? "t1 "t5] [setlives lives - 1 t1, seth 0 fd 30]
when [touching? "t1 "t6] [setlives lives - 1 t1, seth 0 fd 30]
when [touching? "t1 "t8] [setlives lives - 1 t1, seth 0 fd 30]
when [touching? "t1 "t9] [setlives lives - 1 t1, seth 0 fd 30]
when [touching? "t1 "t10] [setlives lives - 1 t1, seth 0 fd 30]


one way to simplify it is using a procedure with an input:

to check.aggression :aggressor
when [touching? "t1 :aggressor] [setlives lives - 1 t1, seth 0 fd 30]
end

then all those lines can become:

check.aggression "t2
check.aggression "t3
check.aggression "t4
check.aggression "t5
check.aggression "t6
check.aggression "t7
check.aggression "t8
check.aggression "t9
check.aggression "t10

then if you ever want to change the way the aggression is 
handled you only need to modify the check.aggression 
procedure. Procedures are abstraction tools.

========================

Today, in another project I saw:


to check.aggression :aggressor
waituntil [touching? "shark :aggressor] :aggressor, [ht]
end


Notice:

:aggressor,


It doesn't work.


Why is MW syntax not consistent?


Daniel