>How about the time the lexical analyzer wastes scanning a 65536 char
>object name?
>And how unreadable your code will be with lots of 65536 char variables?
>And the time it would take to write a script if all your variable names
>were 65536
>chars long?
Andre,
whether you're using an unsigned long or an unsigned char doesn't make
much difference to the code, and its readability won't change. And even
though it's very unlikely that anyone will have such long names now, it
will simplify our code a lot. It'd be much more of a problem if we had
different string lengths for different objects. We'd need:
- different string classes for max lengths 256, 65535 etc.
- Conversion routines to convert between those
- error handling for too-long strings during conversion
It'll really simplify our code a lot if all strings have the same limit.
And remember, back in the days of HC 1.0, 30 000 characters in a text field
seemed to be more than enough.
>I don't think it will be a feature I am likely to use anyway. 256 chars is
>plenty
>for me.
As it basically simplifies code more than introducing the limit would, we
give our users the freedom to store whole books in a button's name. But at
the same time, our users can decide themselves whether they prefer short
names or not. I don't see a problem there.
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
--- HELP SAVE HYPERCARD: ---
Details at: http://www.hyperactivesw.com/SaveHC.html
Sign: http://www.giguere.uqam.ca/petition/hcpetition.html
