Quoting Bert Wesarg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> > if (v = [k] in array) { ... }
> >> true if array[k] == v, right?
> >
> > no - it means
> > if ([k] in array) { v = array[k]; ... }
> Ahh, ok. Maybe this would be a nice addition:
>
> if ([k] == v in array) { ... }
>
> would be the same as:
>
> if (([k] in array) && (array[k] == v)) { ... }
>
> But I can't see a value for this right now ;-)
Neither can I. But you'd have to include the other 5 compares...
> > BTW, you also get (.key = v in array) doing the same value retrieval;
> this
> > is identical to (v = ["key"] in array)...
> >
> >> Both sounds reasonable, except my previous concern about v=[k].
> >
> > Like you I prefer putting the value placeholder after the "=", to match
> the
> > anonymous array syntax.
> Than why do have this syntax in the first place?
Because I was looking for preferences from others... Anybody else want
to chime in at all?
> > ... my intention [with my patch page] was to provide "single
> > functionality patches" which would always apply to the code base, and
> > combine with intermediate ones to get the assemblage I want (as you've
> > seen in the past). The accumulation of changes is really too much.
> "my intention was to provide", if this isn't your intention anymore,
> you know you don't need to stick at this.
I'd like to do so still, but it's just getting to be too much to be able
to keep combining them to build my own "ueberpatched" version!
Tony
--
NEdit Develop mailing list - [email protected]
http://www.nedit.org/mailman/listinfo/develop
