At 8:12 PM +0200 on 6/16/99, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
>> e [anyone have a better character for this?] 2.718281828459
>> // anyone have a better e? I tried to generate one with
>> // (1+1/big_number)^(big_number) but HC underflowed...
>
>Anthony,
>
> as long as it is still possible to have a variable named "e", this is fine
>by me.
Hmmm... thise does open up a lot of possibilities. Presently you can't have
a variable called e; that's why I'd like a better character. Preferably an
illegal one. (for example, option-p [�] for pi).
But I wonder if predefined varaibles are sensible?
>>Limits:
>>Item HyperCard Interpreter
>>Maximum nested repeats 32 -
>>Active variables 512 *
>>Maximum variable name size 31 -
>>Maximum script size 30,000 -
>
>>*presently 64, but will be unsigned LongInt (~ 4 billion) by release.
>
>Just 4 billion? Aww... c'mon! <g>
>
>I think all of us can live with that limit (it's on a per-handler basis,
>right?)
Yes.
