On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 18:12 -0800, Curtis Clauson wrote: > G. Roderick Singleton wrote: > > 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? >
Basic is only one of many ways of programming, albeit the easiest because it's built-in, but not the only one. There is python, perl, Java et cetera. Since you have taken the time to do an initial survey, and found it difficult, perhaps I can still persuade you that even your survey might be useful. Please consider doing something like this. We have a VBA to OOoBasic cross reference but more would be good even if it's a bit superficial. Thanks, ger -- Documentation Co-Lead PLEASE - keep list traffic on the list. Email sent directly to me may be ignored utterly. "Dinna meddle wi' things ye ken nuthin' aboot!" J.Herriot --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
