At 2:00 PM +0100 on 12/16/99, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
No it won't. The parser couldn't care less about function names. It just
sees call the function called so-and-so with parameters so-and-so and put
the result into so-and-so.
Anthony,
I meant if we add custom syntax definitions in handler's
At 6:27 PM +0100 on 12/14/99, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
Actually, the parser has seen everything -- everything will be parsed on
script save. But for other reasons this is not possible.
And what if a user first writes the line using a call and then actually
adds the call? Parsing will fail!
No it
Alain: Is it possible to dramatically simplify the
process of adding new NATIVE FreeScript syntax to
FreeCard?
I've pursued it theoretically in HyperTalk without comming up with an
approach promising enough to script. I would like to be able to replace
lines like
get
At 3:09 PM +0100 on 12/13/99, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
on laugh "about" value "when" expression
...
end laugh
since the parser hasn't even seen some of the scripts when their handlers
might already have been called.
Actually, the parser has seen everything -- everything will be parsed on
Uli: What is new syntax in your case? e.g. if I wanted
to add a command: laugh about value when
expression
would this be new syntax?
Anthony: Yes. But "laugh(value,expression)" is not.
Alain: Just like HyperCard. Any new command or
function must use the generic form of syntax that is
less
At 2:16 PM -0800 on 12/12/99, Alain Farmer wrote:
commandName param1,param2,paramn
functionName (param1,param2,paramn)
Alain: Is this the only kind of syntax that you
envision people contributing to FreeCard?
At runtime it is. However, if you just want to create a special syntax for
a certain
