I actually think what you are suggesting - which is essentially typing a few less characters - has the potential to lead to huge confusion when writing a lot of code. Also potentially difficult to debug... should you accidentally get your static & non-static variables mixed up...
At least with the current set up we know what's what... --- In [email protected], "scourt2000" <steveh...@...> wrote: > > > AFL needs something like: > > static { > a = 1; > b = 2.3; > c = "hello world" > } > > The first time the script is read into a chart, the variables within the > static{} clause would be created and initialized. Their values would be > GLOBAL and REMEMBERED from run-to-run of the script. > > I know what you're thinking.... > > "Well, you can use StaticVarGet(), StaticVarSet(), StaticVarGetText() and > StaticVarSetText() and do the same thing you're trying to show here so what's > your point?". > > My reaction to that kind of question is...HUH?! > > Oh, you mean you would rather say: > > "StaticVarSet("a", 3)" or "a = StaticVarGet("a")" > > rather than: > > "a = 3" or "a" > > to have values set/get and remembered between runs of the script (global, yet > private to that particular script)? > > Now, tell me honestly, which one makes YOUR programming life easier and your > scripts easier to be read by others? >
