Hi, On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:02:55 +0100 meik michalke <[email protected]> wrote: > Am Dienstag, 27. Oktober 2015, 08:29:43 schrieb Thomas > Friedrichsmeier: > > Will you be able to cover for()-loops, too? > > there you go, for loops are now also supported, in a basic way. > > i needed to work around the different syntax, so the current solution > defines an empty array first, then pushes the given values into it > and finaly iterates through the array with another helper variable. > to limit the possibility of accidently using the same var names, > these have random names. that looks a bit ugly, but what can you do? > > i could use a typical use case you have in mind, to optimize this bit.
I was mostly being curious, if you had an idea on this, since, of course in this example, the syntactic differences are much larger. Still I suppose your solution should do the trick, esp. considering that for-loops won't be needed too often (outside optionsets, at least). Regarding the var names, I'd suggest to use a prefix + counter, instead of pure randomness. Then at least the var names will make a tiny bit of sense, if somebody is trying to read them. E.g. "_RKD_for_array_1" and "_RKD_for_index_1", or something like that. Regards Thomas
pgpMurA4MJDgb.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ rkward-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/rkward-devel
