On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 14:37, Curtis Clauson wrote:
JÃrgen Schmidt wrote:
Hi Curtis,
no, there is no specification available. Only the existing online help and the docu in the DevGuide. When you find bugs in both kind of documentation, you can easy help us by submitting an issue for the problem.
The Community will owe it to you
Juergen
Thanks Juergen.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to submit issues when you have no idea if the behavior is a bug or part of an unknown and undocumented design.
The community would reap far more benefit if an OOo Basic language specification were a live document in the scripting project documentation section.
Sorry bout that. Too quick on the send. I meant to say, I agree this is a great idea but unless someone such as yourself sits down and does it, it will not happen. May I encourage you to think about doing so? I can assure you that we, on the documentation project, will assist.
Well, I have a lot of historical BASIC documentation for different implementations from my older teaching days. The problem is, matching what has been Basic to what is actually implemented in OOo.
I took a quick look at the parser and discovered an ancient-style, procedure oriented, and heavily patched parser/tokenizer/code-generator. There have been alterations made to it recently.
For me to create a language specification, I would have to dredge through all the code and try to deduce what it was actually intended to implement. This takes a lot of time. Add to that the fact that all the comments are in German, the translation of which adds a *lot* more time.
Someone who already knows this implementation, like those who wrote it, would be able to create a language specification in a fraction of the time it would take me. I'm astounded that the implementation is not based on an already written specification or BNF-ish grammar.
If no one like this already exists, I could deal with it, but it will be awhile. What really kills me is that, though I love Basic as a prototyping and entry-level language, I've always hated it for office automation, preferring instead JavaScript so that the office automation script, web page script, and plugin/extension language are all based on the same language concepts. I know we can now use JS for OOo (hooplah!), but people like me are still forced to support Basic for clients still dedicated to Basic. <sigh>
I presume questions about the Basic implementation are more properly addressed to the UDK Development mailing list?
-- -------------------------------------------------------- The Snake Pit - Development www.TheSnakePitDev.com Curtis Clauson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Proprietor
"Any sufficiently over-complicated magic is indistinguishable from technology." -- Llelan D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
