Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Jim Lambert via use-livecode]

> Jacque wrote:
> 
> But while I agree completely with your definition, it got me concerned that 
> if I were to marry a very tall, large man, I would be a bigamist.

A 24 carat post!
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 9/9/21 8:53 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:


The former.


Yay. Thanks.

--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Ralph DiMola via use-livecode]

>put [4, 5, 6] into tVar2
>
>equivalent to
>
> put 4 into tVar2[1]
> put 5 into tVar2[2]
> put 6 into tVar2[3]
>
>or
>
> put 4 into tVar2[4]
> put 5 into tVar2[5]
> put 6 into tVar2[6]

I hope it's the former.

What about

put ["a","b","c"] into tVar3

Is this that same as

put "a" into tVar3[1]
put "b" into tVar3[2]
put "c" into tVar3[3]

???

Ralph DiMola
IT Director
Evergreen Information Services
rdim...@evergreeninfo.net


-Original Message-
From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf Of 
Mark Wieder via use-livecode
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2021 11:47 AM
To: Mark Waddingham via use-livecode
Cc: Mark Wieder
Subject: Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

On 9/8/21 10:40 PM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:

>put [1, 2, 3] into tVar2
> 
> is equivalent to:
> 
>put 1 into tVar2[1]
>put 2 into tVar2[2]
>put 3 into tVar2[3]

That's still ambiguous, though. Is

put [4, 5, 6] into tVar2

equivalent to

 put 4 into tVar2[1]
 put 5 into tVar2[2]
 put 6 into tVar2[3]

or

 put 4 into tVar2[4]
 put 5 into tVar2[5]
 put 6 into tVar2[6]

-- 
  Mark Wieder
  ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Mark Waddingham via use-livecode]

On 2021-09-09 16:47, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:

On 9/8/21 10:40 PM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:


   put [1, 2, 3] into tVar2

is equivalent to:

   put 1 into tVar2[1]
   put 2 into tVar2[2]
   put 3 into tVar2[3]


That's still ambiguous, though. Is

put [4, 5, 6] into tVar2

equivalent to

put 4 into tVar2[1]
put 5 into tVar2[2]
put 6 into tVar2[3]

or

put 4 into tVar2[4]
put 5 into tVar2[5]
put 6 into tVar2[6]


The former.

[ V1, ..., VN ] denotes a sequence which is an array mapping the key i 
to Vi.


{ "K1": V1, ..., "KN": VN } denotes a dictionary which is an array 
mapping Ki to Vi.


Warmest Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 9/8/21 10:40 PM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:


   put [1, 2, 3] into tVar2

is equivalent to:

   put 1 into tVar2[1]
   put 2 into tVar2[2]
   put 3 into tVar2[3]


That's still ambiguous, though. Is

put [4, 5, 6] into tVar2

equivalent to

put 4 into tVar2[1]
put 5 into tVar2[2]
put 6 into tVar2[3]

or

put 4 into tVar2[4]
put 5 into tVar2[5]
put 6 into tVar2[6]

--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

Any thread in which two LC team members participate cannot possibly be 
considered off-topic and subsequently banned.


But while I agree completely with your definition, it got me concerned that 
if I were to marry a very tall, large man, I would be a bigamist.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On September 9, 2021 5:52:02 AM Heather Laine via use-livecode 
 wrote:


Ok, I cannot help myself. Somewhere in this thread was mentioned "a couple 
of carrots" and this was defined as two. It is in fact not two. It is the 
equivalent amount of carrots to about 2, if the carrots are well sized but 
not enormous. If you have small carrots, please chop 3. If they are huge, 
one is enough. Thus, a couple of carrots. A perfectly sensible request 
which any sensible husband should be able to interpret correctly.


Warmest regards to all, and should I add carrots to cheese as items that 
should not arise too often for extensive discussion?


Heather


Heather Laine
Customer Services Manager
LiveCode Ltd
www.livecode.com



On 9 Sep 2021, at 11:26, Andre Garzia via use-livecode 
 wrote:


I’ll just add that a couple of pints never means exactly two pints….

Language is a very fluid thing.

Sent from my iPhone

On 8 Sep 2021, at 23:14, matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
 wrote:


Btw. this is how Merriam-Webster thinks about couple, few and several.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/couple-few-several-use 





Am 09.09.2021 um 00:08 schrieb matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
:


More than three.



Am 09.09.2021 um 00:04 schrieb Bob Sneidar via use-livecode 
:


Then what does a few mean?

Bob S


On Sep 8, 2021, at 14:49 , matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
 wrote:


How lucky we Germans are with having to write some words in capitals. ;)

'ein Paar' (a couple)  means 2
'ein Paar Schuhe' means a pair of shoes

'ein paar' means two or three or somewhere in the range.
'ein paar Schuhe' means 2 or 3 or somewhere in the range shoes


In the English lessons in school  we learned  that for example  'a couple 
of days' meant 2 or 3 or somewhere in that range.
And when we used  'couple' as a noun then it was meant as  2 that belong to 
each other or however you would call that.
e.g. married couple, bird couple. That's the way i use 'couple" now for 
more than 40 years.


Don't tell me that i was wrong more than 40 years. ;)


Am 08.09.2021 um 21:54 schrieb J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
:


My husband said the same when I told him about this thread. "Couple" means 
two. I said yes, but colloquially it can mean "two or three or somewhere in 
that range." We almost started a longer discussion about it, but I reminded 
him of our 30+ years of ongoing talk about a "fact" so we both stopped.



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Martin Koob via use-livecode]

Hi Heather

The mention of carrots was mine.  I agree with your logic “couple" is a fuzzy 
number which I am fine with (though when it comes to carrots themselves fuzzy 
is not good.)  Yesterday the carrots were very small and striving to be a 
sensible husband I chopped 5 up.  I of course I checked before chopping to make 
sure that was the correct amount.   I wonder if there is a difference between 
'a couple carrots' and "a couple OF carrots"?

Anyway I agree this carrot thread is getting close to going beyond the line of 
silliness and maybe should be banished from discussions on the list here along 
with that other orange food that may not be mentioned here that rhymes with 
please.

Have a good day all.

Martin.

> On Sep 9, 2021, at 6:50 AM, Heather Laine via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Ok, I cannot help myself. Somewhere in this thread was mentioned "a couple of 
> carrots" and this was defined as two. It is in fact not two. It is the 
> equivalent amount of carrots to about 2, if the carrots are well sized but 
> not enormous. If you have small carrots, please chop 3. If they are huge, one 
> is enough. Thus, a couple of carrots. A perfectly sensible request which any 
> sensible husband should be able to interpret correctly.
> 
> Warmest regards to all, and should I add carrots to cheese as items that 
> should not arise too often for extensive discussion?
> 
> Heather
> 
> 
> Heather Laine
> Customer Services Manager
> LiveCode Ltd
> www.livecode.com
> 
> 
> 
>> On 9 Sep 2021, at 11:26, Andre Garzia via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I’ll just add that a couple of pints never means exactly two pints….
>> 
>> Language is a very fluid thing. 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On 8 Sep 2021, at 23:14, matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Btw. this is how Merriam-Webster thinks about couple, few and several.
>>> 
>>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/couple-few-several-use 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 Am 09.09.2021 um 00:08 schrieb matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
 :
 
 More than three. 
 
 
 
>> Am 09.09.2021 um 00:04 schrieb Bob Sneidar via use-livecode 
>> :
> 
> Then what does a few mean? 
> 
> Bob S
> 
> 
>> On Sep 8, 2021, at 14:49 , matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> How lucky we Germans are with having to write some words in capitals. ;) 
>> 
>> 'ein Paar' (a couple)  means 2
>> 'ein Paar Schuhe' means a pair of shoes
>> 
>> 'ein paar' means two or three or somewhere in the range.
>> 'ein paar Schuhe' means 2 or 3 or somewhere in the range shoes 
>> 
>> 
>> In the English lessons in school  we learned  that for example  'a 
>> couple of days' meant 2 or 3 or somewhere in that range.
>> And when we used  'couple' as a noun then it was meant as  2 that belong 
>> to each other or however you would call that.
>> e.g. married couple, bird couple. That's the way i use 'couple" now for 
>> more than 40 years. 
>> 
>> Don't tell me that i was wrong more than 40 years. ;) 
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 08.09.2021 um 21:54 schrieb J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>>> :
>>> 
>>> My husband said the same when I told him about this thread. "Couple" 
>>> means two. I said yes, but colloquially it can mean "two or three or 
>>> somewhere in that range." We almost started a longer discussion about 
>>> it, but I reminded him of our 30+ years of ongoing talk about a "fact" 
>>> so we both stopped.
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
 
 
 ___
 use-livecode mailing list
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
 subscription preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> 

RE: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Ralph DiMola via use-livecode]

"Language is a very fluid thing." Yes it is. Up here in NYS we stop off for the 
"One". Where "one" is from 1 to ...

Ralph DiMola
IT Director
Evergreen Information Services
rdim...@evergreeninfo.net

-Original Message-
From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf Of 
Andre Garzia via use-livecode
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2021 6:27 AM
To: How to use LiveCode
Cc: Andre Garzia
Subject: Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

I’ll just add that a couple of pints never means exactly two pints….

Language is a very fluid thing. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 8 Sep 2021, at 23:14, matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Btw. this is how Merriam-Webster thinks about couple, few and several.
> 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/couple-few-several-use 
> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/couple-few-several-use>
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 09.09.2021 um 00:08 schrieb matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
>> :
>> 
>> More than three. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> Am 09.09.2021 um 00:04 schrieb Bob Sneidar via use-livecode 
>>>> :
>>> 
>>> Then what does a few mean? 
>>> 
>>> Bob S
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 8, 2021, at 14:49 , matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> How lucky we Germans are with having to write some words in capitals. ;) 
>>>> 
>>>> 'ein Paar' (a couple)  means 2
>>>> 'ein Paar Schuhe' means a pair of shoes
>>>> 
>>>> 'ein paar' means two or three or somewhere in the range.
>>>> 'ein paar Schuhe' means 2 or 3 or somewhere in the range shoes 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> In the English lessons in school  we learned  that for example  'a couple 
>>>> of days' meant 2 or 3 or somewhere in that range.
>>>> And when we used  'couple' as a noun then it was meant as  2 that belong 
>>>> to each other or however you would call that.
>>>> e.g. married couple, bird couple. That's the way i use 'couple" now for 
>>>> more than 40 years. 
>>>> 
>>>> Don't tell me that i was wrong more than 40 years. ;) 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Am 08.09.2021 um 21:54 schrieb J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>>>>> :
>>>>> 
>>>>> My husband said the same when I told him about this thread. "Couple" 
>>>>> means two. I said yes, but colloquially it can mean "two or three or 
>>>>> somewhere in that range." We almost started a longer discussion about it, 
>>>>> but I reminded him of our 30+ years of ongoing talk about a "fact" so we 
>>>>> both stopped.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Heather Laine via use-livecode]

Ok, I cannot help myself. Somewhere in this thread was mentioned "a couple of 
carrots" and this was defined as two. It is in fact not two. It is the 
equivalent amount of carrots to about 2, if the carrots are well sized but not 
enormous. If you have small carrots, please chop 3. If they are huge, one is 
enough. Thus, a couple of carrots. A perfectly sensible request which any 
sensible husband should be able to interpret correctly.

Warmest regards to all, and should I add carrots to cheese as items that should 
not arise too often for extensive discussion?

Heather


Heather Laine
Customer Services Manager
LiveCode Ltd
www.livecode.com



> On 9 Sep 2021, at 11:26, Andre Garzia via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> I’ll just add that a couple of pints never means exactly two pints….
> 
> Language is a very fluid thing. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 8 Sep 2021, at 23:14, matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Btw. this is how Merriam-Webster thinks about couple, few and several.
>> 
>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/couple-few-several-use 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 09.09.2021 um 00:08 schrieb matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
>>> :
>>> 
>>> More than three. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> Am 09.09.2021 um 00:04 schrieb Bob Sneidar via use-livecode 
> :
 
 Then what does a few mean? 
 
 Bob S
 
 
> On Sep 8, 2021, at 14:49 , matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> How lucky we Germans are with having to write some words in capitals. ;) 
> 
> 'ein Paar' (a couple)  means 2
> 'ein Paar Schuhe' means a pair of shoes
> 
> 'ein paar' means two or three or somewhere in the range.
> 'ein paar Schuhe' means 2 or 3 or somewhere in the range shoes 
> 
> 
> In the English lessons in school  we learned  that for example  'a couple 
> of days' meant 2 or 3 or somewhere in that range.
> And when we used  'couple' as a noun then it was meant as  2 that belong 
> to each other or however you would call that.
> e.g. married couple, bird couple. That's the way i use 'couple" now for 
> more than 40 years. 
> 
> Don't tell me that i was wrong more than 40 years. ;) 
> 
> 
>> Am 08.09.2021 um 21:54 schrieb J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>> :
>> 
>> My husband said the same when I told him about this thread. "Couple" 
>> means two. I said yes, but colloquially it can mean "two or three or 
>> somewhere in that range." We almost started a longer discussion about 
>> it, but I reminded him of our 30+ years of ongoing talk about a "fact" 
>> so we both stopped.
 
 
 ___
 use-livecode mailing list
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
 subscription preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Andre Garzia via use-livecode]

I’ll just add that a couple of pints never means exactly two pints….

Language is a very fluid thing. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 8 Sep 2021, at 23:14, matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Btw. this is how Merriam-Webster thinks about couple, few and several.
> 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/couple-few-several-use 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 09.09.2021 um 00:08 schrieb matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
>> :
>> 
>> More than three. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
 Am 09.09.2021 um 00:04 schrieb Bob Sneidar via use-livecode 
 :
>>> 
>>> Then what does a few mean? 
>>> 
>>> Bob S
>>> 
>>> 
 On Sep 8, 2021, at 14:49 , matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
  wrote:
 
 How lucky we Germans are with having to write some words in capitals. ;) 
 
 'ein Paar' (a couple)  means 2
 'ein Paar Schuhe' means a pair of shoes
 
 'ein paar' means two or three or somewhere in the range.
 'ein paar Schuhe' means 2 or 3 or somewhere in the range shoes 
 
 
 In the English lessons in school  we learned  that for example  'a couple 
 of days' meant 2 or 3 or somewhere in that range.
 And when we used  'couple' as a noun then it was meant as  2 that belong 
 to each other or however you would call that.
 e.g. married couple, bird couple. That's the way i use 'couple" now for 
 more than 40 years. 
 
 Don't tell me that i was wrong more than 40 years. ;) 
 
 
> Am 08.09.2021 um 21:54 schrieb J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
> :
> 
> My husband said the same when I told him about this thread. "Couple" 
> means two. I said yes, but colloquially it can mean "two or three or 
> somewhere in that range." We almost started a longer discussion about it, 
> but I reminded him of our 30+ years of ongoing talk about a "fact" so we 
> both stopped.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Mark Waddingham via use-livecode]

On 2021-09-09 00:37, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode wrote:

On 2021-09-08 01:33, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode wrote:


But
 put [1, 2, 3 ] into tVar2
isn't clear to me. If it was in Python it would be a list - but LC
doesn't have 'lists'.

Is it equivalent to
   put true into tVar2[1]
   put true into tVar2[2]
   put true into tVar2[3]    ??



and then On 08/09/2021 08:50, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:

Yes.


But I'm not sure he meant it :-)


No - 'he' didn't mean that ;)

I failed to look properly at the LHS of the puts in your example :D

  put [1, 2, 3] into tVar2

is equivalent to:

  put 1 into tVar2[1]
  put 2 into tVar2[2]
  put 3 into tVar2[3]

Warmest Regards,

Mark.



--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Jim Lambert via use-livecode]

> Matthias wrote:
> 
> 'ein paar' means two or three or somewhere in the range.

Ich kann Deutsch. Aber nur ein paar Wörter.

Jim Lambert
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 9/8/21 4:37 PM, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode wrote:


I think that

    put [4, 5, 7] into tV

is actually equivalent to
    put 4 into tV[1]
    put 5 into tV[2]
    put 7 into tV[3]

But I'm happy to wait and try it out in the DP.


I would certainly be happier if that turns out to be the case.
Otherwise unraveling the hash would be a bit strange.

--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Alex Tweedly via use-livecode]

On 2021-09-08 01:33, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode wrote:


But
 put [1, 2, 3 ] into tVar2
isn't clear to me. If it was in Python it would be a list - but LC
doesn't have 'lists'.

Is it equivalent to
   put true into tVar2[1]
   put true into tVar2[2]
   put true into tVar2[3]    ??



and then On 08/09/2021 08:50, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:

Yes.


But I'm not sure he meant it :-)

He went on to say

A sequence in LC is a numerically-keyed array where the keys range 
from 1...the number of elements.


Admittedly they are (currently) still implemented as a 'normal' array 
internally, but they do have different functionality in `repeat for 
each element` which iterates in numeric order, and not hash order.


This example gives a sequence - but only, basically, by coincidence. A 
better example would be


   put [4, 5, 7] into tV

Using the 'expansion' I used before - that would be equivalent to
   put true into tV[4]
   put true into tV[5]
   put true into tV[7]

not a sequence - and wouldn't preserve ordering in subsequent "repeat 
for each element".


I think that

   put [4, 5, 7] into tV

is actually equivalent to
   put 4 into tV[1]
   put 5 into tV[2]
   put 7 into tV[3]

But I'm happy to wait and try it out in the DP.

Alex.



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 9/8/21 3:03 PM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode wrote:


This actually touches on the arbitrary nature of language. A word only means something 
because all the parties who want to use that word, agree (whether or not they think they 
do) that this word will mean this thing. If over time, a culture begins to use the word 
in a different way or differently in other contexts, it's not because of anything 
intrinsic to the word, but simply because the parties or societies decided (whether or 
not they think they have) to "renegotiate".


+1

There is, I think, a spectrum somewhat as follows:

none
one
a couple
very few
a few
several
many
very many (a great many)
a lot
too many
all the

and the boundaries within the spectrum are squishy

--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Alex Tweedly via use-livecode]

On 08/09/2021 22:43, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:

However, if applied to something which is continuous (and perhaps more 
importantly something humans are not that great at accurately estimating - eg 
time) it rarely means two exactly...

After all when was the last time you said to someone - ‘I’ll just be a couple 
of minutes’ and were, indeed, exactly 120 seconds? ;)

If I say that, I'm more likely to actually be 120 minutes than 120 
seconds :-)


Alex.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Martin Koob via use-livecode]

This reminds me of the counting instructions for the Holy Hand Grenade of 
Antioch.
https://montypython.fandom.com/wiki/Holy_Hand_Grenade_of_Antioch


'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no 
more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of 
the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, 
excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number 
three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand 
Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff 
it.' 

So could this also match the definition of ‘couple’ for counting things — 3 , 2 
if on the way to 3, but 1 one is not mentioned and 5 is right out.

Martin


> On Sep 8, 2021, at 5:43 PM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Heh - I think you are both right in different contexts...
> 
> For sure, when used as a noun in isolation (a couple) it refers to two - 
> specifically either a pair of parallel but opposing forces (physics) or a 
> pair of (usually romantically) involved individuals (some might wryly suggest 
> that these two things are much the same ;) ).
> 
> I’d say though that when applied to another noun, it generally implies ‘some’ 
> - not two specifically, or even three - but a definitely small number.
> 
> In fact I think it’s slightly more subtle than that in general usage though...
> 
> If applied to something which can be counted discretely (eg facts) - ‘a 
> couple of’ implies a likelihood it was almost certainly two, but maybe three 
> (as the exact number wasn’t really important). 
> 
> However, if applied to something which is continuous (and perhaps more 
> importantly something humans are not that great at accurately estimating - eg 
> time) it rarely means two exactly... 
> 
> After all when was the last time you said to someone - ‘I’ll just be a couple 
> of minutes’ and were, indeed, exactly 120 seconds? ;) 

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[matthias rebbe via use-livecode]

Btw. this is how Merriam-Webster thinks about couple, few and several.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/couple-few-several-use 




> Am 09.09.2021 um 00:08 schrieb matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
> :
> 
> More than three. 
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 09.09.2021 um 00:04 schrieb Bob Sneidar via use-livecode 
>> :
>> 
>> Then what does a few mean? 
>> 
>> Bob S
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 8, 2021, at 14:49 , matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> How lucky we Germans are with having to write some words in capitals. ;) 
>>> 
>>> 'ein Paar' (a couple)  means 2
>>> 'ein Paar Schuhe' means a pair of shoes
>>> 
>>> 'ein paar' means two or three or somewhere in the range.
>>> 'ein paar Schuhe' means 2 or 3 or somewhere in the range shoes 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In the English lessons in school  we learned  that for example  'a couple 
>>> of days' meant 2 or 3 or somewhere in that range.
>>> And when we used  'couple' as a noun then it was meant as  2 that belong to 
>>> each other or however you would call that.
>>> e.g. married couple, bird couple. That's the way i use 'couple" now for 
>>> more than 40 years. 
>>> 
>>> Don't tell me that i was wrong more than 40 years. ;) 
>>> 
>>> 
 Am 08.09.2021 um 21:54 schrieb J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
 :
 
 My husband said the same when I told him about this thread. "Couple" means 
 two. I said yes, but colloquially it can mean "two or three or somewhere 
 in that range." We almost started a longer discussion about it, but I 
 reminded him of our 30+ years of ongoing talk about a "fact" so we both 
 stopped.
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[matthias rebbe via use-livecode]

More than three. 



> Am 09.09.2021 um 00:04 schrieb Bob Sneidar via use-livecode 
> :
> 
> Then what does a few mean? 
> 
> Bob S
> 
> 
>> On Sep 8, 2021, at 14:49 , matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> How lucky we Germans are with having to write some words in capitals. ;) 
>> 
>> 'ein Paar' (a couple)  means 2
>> 'ein Paar Schuhe' means a pair of shoes
>> 
>> 'ein paar' means two or three or somewhere in the range.
>> 'ein paar Schuhe' means 2 or 3 or somewhere in the range shoes 
>> 
>> 
>> In the English lessons in school  we learned  that for example  'a couple of 
>> days' meant 2 or 3 or somewhere in that range.
>> And when we used  'couple' as a noun then it was meant as  2 that belong to 
>> each other or however you would call that.
>> e.g. married couple, bird couple. That's the way i use 'couple" now for more 
>> than 40 years. 
>> 
>> Don't tell me that i was wrong more than 40 years. ;) 
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 08.09.2021 um 21:54 schrieb J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>>> :
>>> 
>>> My husband said the same when I told him about this thread. "Couple" means 
>>> two. I said yes, but colloquially it can mean "two or three or somewhere in 
>>> that range." We almost started a longer discussion about it, but I reminded 
>>> him of our 30+ years of ongoing talk about a "fact" so we both stopped.
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Bob Sneidar via use-livecode]

Then what does a few mean? 

Bob S


> On Sep 8, 2021, at 14:49 , matthias rebbe via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> How lucky we Germans are with having to write some words in capitals. ;) 
> 
> 'ein Paar' (a couple)  means 2
> 'ein Paar Schuhe' means a pair of shoes
> 
> 'ein paar' means two or three or somewhere in the range.
> 'ein paar Schuhe' means 2 or 3 or somewhere in the range shoes 
> 
> 
> In the English lessons in school  we learned  that for example  'a couple of 
> days' meant 2 or 3 or somewhere in that range.
> And when we used  'couple' as a noun then it was meant as  2 that belong to 
> each other or however you would call that.
> e.g. married couple, bird couple. That's the way i use 'couple" now for more 
> than 40 years. 
> 
> Don't tell me that i was wrong more than 40 years. ;) 
> 
> 
>> Am 08.09.2021 um 21:54 schrieb J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>> :
>> 
>> My husband said the same when I told him about this thread. "Couple" means 
>> two. I said yes, but colloquially it can mean "two or three or somewhere in 
>> that range." We almost started a longer discussion about it, but I reminded 
>> him of our 30+ years of ongoing talk about a "fact" so we both stopped.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Bob Sneidar via use-livecode]

Okay I told you don't make me come over there and separate you two! ;-) 

This actually touches on the arbitrary nature of language. A word only means 
something because all the parties who want to use that word, agree (whether or 
not they think they do) that this word will mean this thing. If over time, a 
culture begins to use the word in a different way or differently in other 
contexts, it's not because of anything intrinsic to the word, but simply 
because the parties or societies decided (whether or not they think they have) 
to "renegotiate". 

Therefore your argument (Jacque) has no meaning. Sorry to disappoint you. 

Bob S


> On Sep 8, 2021, at 14:43 , Mark Waddingham via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Heh - I think you are both right in different contexts...
> 
> For sure, when used as a noun in isolation (a couple) it refers to two - 
> specifically either a pair of parallel but opposing forces (physics) or a 
> pair of (usually romantically) involved individuals (some might wryly suggest 
> that these two things are much the same ;) ).
> 
> I’d say though that when applied to another noun, it generally implies ‘some’ 
> - not two specifically, or even three - but a definitely small number.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[matthias rebbe via use-livecode]

How lucky we Germans are with having to write some words in capitals. ;) 

'ein Paar' (a couple)  means 2
'ein Paar Schuhe' means a pair of shoes

'ein paar' means two or three or somewhere in the range.
'ein paar Schuhe' means 2 or 3 or somewhere in the range shoes 


In the English lessons in school  we learned  that for example  'a couple of 
days' meant 2 or 3 or somewhere in that range.
And when we used  'couple' as a noun then it was meant as  2 that belong to 
each other or however you would call that.
e.g. married couple, bird couple. That's the way i use 'couple" now for more 
than 40 years. 

Don't tell me that i was wrong more than 40 years. ;) 


> Am 08.09.2021 um 21:54 schrieb J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
> :
> 
> My husband said the same when I told him about this thread. "Couple" means 
> two. I said yes, but colloquially it can mean "two or three or somewhere in 
> that range." We almost started a longer discussion about it, but I reminded 
> him of our 30+ years of ongoing talk about a "fact" so we both stopped.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Mark Waddingham via use-livecode]

Heh - I think you are both right in different contexts...

For sure, when used as a noun in isolation (a couple) it refers to two - 
specifically either a pair of parallel but opposing forces (physics) or a pair 
of (usually romantically) involved individuals (some might wryly suggest that 
these two things are much the same ;) ).

I’d say though that when applied to another noun, it generally implies ‘some’ - 
not two specifically, or even three - but a definitely small number.

In fact I think it’s slightly more subtle than that in general usage though...

If applied to something which can be counted discretely (eg facts) - ‘a couple 
of’ implies a likelihood it was almost certainly two, but maybe three (as the 
exact number wasn’t really important). 

However, if applied to something which is continuous (and perhaps more 
importantly something humans are not that great at accurately estimating - eg 
time) it rarely means two exactly... 

After all when was the last time you said to someone - ‘I’ll just be a couple 
of minutes’ and were, indeed, exactly 120 seconds? ;) 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 8 Sep 2021, at 20:55, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> My husband said the same when I told him about this thread. "Couple" means 
> two. I said yes, but colloquially it can mean "two or three or somewhere in 
> that range." We almost started a longer discussion about it, but I reminded 
> him of our 30+ years of ongoing talk about a "fact" so we both stopped.
> 
> Addendum: he claims there are "true facts." I say that is redundant, that a 
> fact is by definition true, and he's implying there are false facts (or as we 
> say in the US, "alternative facts.") This has been going on for years. It's a 
> friendly, amusing, kind of false disagreement. Then one day we just looked it 
> up in the dictionary and...a fact can either be a true bit of information, or 
> a generic datum.
> 
> And that spoiled all the fun.
> 
> On 9/8/21 6:14 AM, Keith Martin via use-livecode wrote:
 On Sep 7, 2021, at 11:04 PM, Martin Koob via use-livecode 
  wrote:
>>> 
>>> My wife and I have an ongoing disagreement about the term 'couple of’ in 
>>> terms of counting.  I say it means around 2 or 3ish.  She says it means 2. 
>>> Further she says if you wanted to say 3 or 4 you would say ‘a few’.
>> I'm the kind of person that distinguishes between 'like' (exclusive: similar 
>> to but not) and 'such as' (inclusive: similar to and part of the comparison 
>> set), so this is coming from a position of pedantry, but that's because I am 
>> a writer...
>> Strictly speaking, 'a couple' means two, no more and no less. In casual use 
>> (when counting, not when referring to relationship partnerships) it isn't 
>> unusual for it to be used in place of 'a few' and possibly mean three or 
>> even four, but it's not technically *correct.*
>> I too hope your wife's logic is what holds true!
>> :)
>> k
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

On 9/8/21 3:20 PM, Brian Milby via use-livecode wrote:

Ah, the problem with calling things “facts” where the data isn’t actually 
knowable.  The number of hairs on my head is a fact but not one that can be 
accurately known.  Kind of like the number of people who watched the Super 
Bowl.  In that context, true fact makes sense (also “cold hard fact”).  While 
it should be redundant, it emphasizes that the data being referenced is an 
actual fact and not an assumed fact.


Spoilsport. :P

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

On 9/8/21 3:39 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:

On 9/8/21 1:20 PM, Brian Milby via use-livecode wrote:
Ah, the problem with calling things “facts” where the data isn’t actually knowable.  The 
number of hairs on my head is a fact but not one that can be accurately known.  Kind of like 
the number of people who watched the Super Bowl.  In that context, true fact makes sense 
(also “cold hard fact”).  While it should be redundant, it emphasizes that the data being 
referenced is an actual fact and not an assumed fact.


IMO a fact is true. There are no false facts.
That being said, a fact is true within its domain space.
'Atoms are indivisible' was a fact until it wasn't.
That doesn't make it a false fact, just a false statement.
At the time of a fact's creation/utterance/whatever it's true, otherwise it's 
not a fact.



Oh cool. Now we can go back to arguing again.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Bob Sneidar via use-livecode]

The number of hairs on your head at a given point in space and time are a fact, 
and can be theoretically known. I always say that once we know everything about 
a subject, there can be no ambiguity, no "alternate point of view". A fact, or 
"the truth" about a thing is singular. Whether or not we perceive it is a 
different question. 

Bob S


> On Sep 8, 2021, at 13:20 , Brian Milby via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Ah, the problem with calling things “facts” where the data isn’t actually 
> knowable.  The number of hairs on my head is a fact but not one that can be 
> accurately known.  Kind of like the number of people who watched the Super 
> Bowl.  In that context, true fact makes sense (also “cold hard fact”).  While 
> it should be redundant, it emphasizes that the data being referenced is an 
> actual fact and not an assumed fact.
> 
> My dad always was clear that “couple” of minutes was 2 and a few was 3.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Sep 8, 2021, at 3:55 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> My husband said the same when I told him about this thread. "Couple" means 
>> two. I said yes, but colloquially it can mean "two or three or somewhere in 
>> that range." We almost started a longer discussion about it, but I reminded 
>> him of our 30+ years of ongoing talk about a "fact" so we both stopped.
>> 
>> Addendum: he claims there are "true facts." I say that is redundant, that a 
>> fact is by definition true, and he's implying there are false facts (or as 
>> we say in the US, "alternative facts.") This has been going on for years. 
>> It's a friendly, amusing, kind of false disagreement. Then one day we just 
>> looked it up in the dictionary and...a fact can either be a true bit of 
>> information, or a generic datum.
>> 
>> And that spoiled all the fun.
>> 
>> On 9/8/21 6:14 AM, Keith Martin via use-livecode wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2021, at 11:04 PM, Martin Koob via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
 
 My wife and I have an ongoing disagreement about the term 'couple of’ in 
 terms of counting.  I say it means around 2 or 3ish.  She says it means 2. 
 Further she says if you wanted to say 3 or 4 you would say ‘a few’.
>>> I'm the kind of person that distinguishes between 'like' (exclusive: 
>>> similar to but not) and 'such as' (inclusive: similar to and part of the 
>>> comparison set), so this is coming from a position of pedantry, but that's 
>>> because I am a writer...
>>> Strictly speaking, 'a couple' means two, no more and no less. In casual use 
>>> (when counting, not when referring to relationship partnerships) it isn't 
>>> unusual for it to be used in place of 'a few' and possibly mean three or 
>>> even four, but it's not technically *correct.*
>>> I too hope your wife's logic is what holds true!
>>> :)
>>> k
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
>> HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Martin Koob via use-livecode]

Hi Jacqueline

That’s funny, I was assuming that it was a male / female language usage issue.  
It would be odd if coders saw ‘couple’ not being an arbitrary number but one 
with some flexibility and not coders not.  (Although if your husband is also a 
coder that would blow that theory out of the water. )  I would think the 
opposite would be true.  The coders I would think would think arbitrary values 
instead of fuzzy variables.

Our disagreement over “couple” is the same as yours over “facts”… friendly, 
amusing and kind of yet not totally false.  eg.  asked to chop up a couple of 
carrots I will ask how many exactly. "Two" is the reply….. and then the 
“argument” starts.

Sad to hear that looking up the facts about “facts" ruined your ongoing 
argument about “facts”.  But maybe there are alternative facts that state 
otherwise and you can revive the discussion as to the meaning of “facts”.

Martin


 
> On Sep 8, 2021, at 3:54 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> My husband said the same when I told him about this thread. "Couple" means 
> two. I said yes, but colloquially it can mean "two or three or somewhere in 
> that range." We almost started a longer discussion about it, but I reminded 
> him of our 30+ years of ongoing talk about a "fact" so we both stopped.
> 
> Addendum: he claims there are "true facts." I say that is redundant, that a 
> fact is by definition true, and he's implying there are false facts (or as we 
> say in the US, "alternative facts.") This has been going on for years. It's a 
> friendly, amusing, kind of false disagreement. Then one day we just looked it 
> up in the dictionary and...a fact can either be a true bit of information, or 
> a generic datum.
> 
> And that spoiled all the fun.
> 
> On 9/8/21 6:14 AM, Keith Martin via use-livecode wrote:
>>> On Sep 7, 2021, at 11:04 PM, Martin Koob via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> My wife and I have an ongoing disagreement about the term 'couple of’ in 
>>> terms of counting.  I say it means around 2 or 3ish.  She says it means 2. 
>>> Further she says if you wanted to say 3 or 4 you would say ‘a few’.
>> I'm the kind of person that distinguishes between 'like' (exclusive: similar 
>> to but not) and 'such as' (inclusive: similar to and part of the comparison 
>> set), so this is coming from a position of pedantry, but that's because I am 
>> a writer...
>> Strictly speaking, 'a couple' means two, no more and no less. In casual use 
>> (when counting, not when referring to relationship partnerships) it isn't 
>> unusual for it to be used in place of 'a few' and possibly mean three or 
>> even four, but it's not technically *correct.*
>> I too hope your wife's logic is what holds true!
>> :)
>> k
> 

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 9/8/21 1:20 PM, Brian Milby via use-livecode wrote:

Ah, the problem with calling things “facts” where the data isn’t actually 
knowable.  The number of hairs on my head is a fact but not one that can be 
accurately known.  Kind of like the number of people who watched the Super 
Bowl.  In that context, true fact makes sense (also “cold hard fact”).  While 
it should be redundant, it emphasizes that the data being referenced is an 
actual fact and not an assumed fact.


IMO a fact is true. There are no false facts.
That being said, a fact is true within its domain space.
'Atoms are indivisible' was a fact until it wasn't.
That doesn't make it a false fact, just a false statement.
At the time of a fact's creation/utterance/whatever it's true, otherwise 
it's not a fact.


--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Brian Milby via use-livecode]

Ah, the problem with calling things “facts” where the data isn’t actually 
knowable.  The number of hairs on my head is a fact but not one that can be 
accurately known.  Kind of like the number of people who watched the Super 
Bowl.  In that context, true fact makes sense (also “cold hard fact”).  While 
it should be redundant, it emphasizes that the data being referenced is an 
actual fact and not an assumed fact.

My dad always was clear that “couple” of minutes was 2 and a few was 3.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 8, 2021, at 3:55 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> My husband said the same when I told him about this thread. "Couple" means 
> two. I said yes, but colloquially it can mean "two or three or somewhere in 
> that range." We almost started a longer discussion about it, but I reminded 
> him of our 30+ years of ongoing talk about a "fact" so we both stopped.
> 
> Addendum: he claims there are "true facts." I say that is redundant, that a 
> fact is by definition true, and he's implying there are false facts (or as we 
> say in the US, "alternative facts.") This has been going on for years. It's a 
> friendly, amusing, kind of false disagreement. Then one day we just looked it 
> up in the dictionary and...a fact can either be a true bit of information, or 
> a generic datum.
> 
> And that spoiled all the fun.
> 
> On 9/8/21 6:14 AM, Keith Martin via use-livecode wrote:
 On Sep 7, 2021, at 11:04 PM, Martin Koob via use-livecode 
  wrote:
>>> 
>>> My wife and I have an ongoing disagreement about the term 'couple of’ in 
>>> terms of counting.  I say it means around 2 or 3ish.  She says it means 2. 
>>> Further she says if you wanted to say 3 or 4 you would say ‘a few’.
>> I'm the kind of person that distinguishes between 'like' (exclusive: similar 
>> to but not) and 'such as' (inclusive: similar to and part of the comparison 
>> set), so this is coming from a position of pedantry, but that's because I am 
>> a writer...
>> Strictly speaking, 'a couple' means two, no more and no less. In casual use 
>> (when counting, not when referring to relationship partnerships) it isn't 
>> unusual for it to be used in place of 'a few' and possibly mean three or 
>> even four, but it's not technically *correct.*
>> I too hope your wife's logic is what holds true!
>> :)
>> k
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

My husband said the same when I told him about this thread. "Couple" means two. I said yes, but 
colloquially it can mean "two or three or somewhere in that range." We almost started a longer 
discussion about it, but I reminded him of our 30+ years of ongoing talk about a "fact" so we 
both stopped.


Addendum: he claims there are "true facts." I say that is redundant, that a fact is by 
definition true, and he's implying there are false facts (or as we say in the US, "alternative 
facts.") This has been going on for years. It's a friendly, amusing, kind of false 
disagreement. Then one day we just looked it up in the dictionary and...a fact can either be a 
true bit of information, or a generic datum.


And that spoiled all the fun.

On 9/8/21 6:14 AM, Keith Martin via use-livecode wrote:

On Sep 7, 2021, at 11:04 PM, Martin Koob via use-livecode 
 wrote:

My wife and I have an ongoing disagreement about the term 'couple of’ in terms 
of counting.  I say it means around 2 or 3ish.  She says it means 2. Further 
she says if you wanted to say 3 or 4 you would say ‘a few’.


I'm the kind of person that distinguishes between 'like' (exclusive: similar to 
but not) and 'such as' (inclusive: similar to and part of the comparison set), 
so this is coming from a position of pedantry, but that's because I am a 
writer...

Strictly speaking, 'a couple' means two, no more and no less. In casual use 
(when counting, not when referring to relationship partnerships) it isn't 
unusual for it to be used in place of 'a few' and possibly mean three or even 
four, but it's not technically *correct.*

I too hope your wife's logic is what holds true!

:)

k



--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Mark Waddingham via use-livecode]

On 2021-09-08 16:48, Ben Rubinstein via use-livecode wrote:

It requires an explicit '...':


Ahah! Not being a javascripter, I completely missed that, and thought
you were just omitting some text for clarity!

[Sidenote: what idiot decided to use ellipsis as an operator?? And not
even the ellipsis character, but three dots???].


Well the heritage of 'triple dots' for such things goes back to C - and 
I think the general idea is that its 'and the rest' (its used to mark 
variadic functions there).


In terms of using it as the operator in this case:

  foo a, b, ... tFoo
 => call foo with parameters a, b, 'and the rest' from tFoo

The reason why it isn't the ellipsis character is because it is 
generally advised to ensure that all core syntax of a language can be 
expressed in ASCII (for the antithesis of this idea - see APL!)


Interesting your missing of the all important operator being required 
reminds
of a mistake I did make way back when I added the ability to use a 
sequence

array as an array index...

   put tArray[tFoo] into tBar -- evaluates as tArray[1][2]


What the... ? [insert joke here - I wrote that without realising what
I'd done...]. I had no idea this facility existed. Is it documented
anywhere?


I'm pretty sure you were one of the people who motivated it (the other 
definitely being Trevor)...


It's definitely come up on the use-list before :D

It has been in the engine for years - maybe since 4.x or 5.x? The 
addition was more than likely buried in the release notes though...



Just to be clear, because the example below is ambiguous, given

  put "a" into tFoo[1]
  put "b" into tFoo[2]

would
  put tArray[tFoo] into tBar

evaluate as
tArray["a"]["b"]
or
tArray[1][2]

?


The former - if an array is encountered in an index, and is a sequence, 
the ordered sequence of values derived from the sequence is used as 
extra components of the path. Indeed, this happens recursively IIRC - 
i.e. if you have ['a', ['b', 'c'], 'd'] then the array path would be 
[a][b][c][d].


Warmest Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Ben Rubinstein via use-livecode]

On 08/09/2021 14:20, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:

I also wonder whether this might be the moment to introduce another
bit of (completely non-breaking) syntactic sugar:
https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=8945


Hehe - with integers being unbounded, there are plenty more version numbers in 
the future ;)


But why wait? (At least to introduce the 'uninterpreted' version.) If nothing 
else, it might serve to block the "@" symbol being hijacked for some other 
damn fool bit of syntax...


Ben (grumpy old man)

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Ben Rubinstein via use-livecode]

> It requires an explicit '...':

Ahah! Not being a javascripter, I completely missed that, and thought you were 
just omitting some text for clarity!


[Sidenote: what idiot decided to use ellipsis as an operator?? And not even 
the ellipsis character, but three dots???].


> Interesting your missing of the all important operator being required reminds
> of a mistake I did make way back when I added the ability to use a sequence
> array as an array index...
>
>put tArray[tFoo] into tBar -- evaluates as tArray[1][2]

What the... ? [insert joke here - I wrote that without realising what I'd 
done...]. I had no idea this facility existed. Is it documented anywhere?


Just to be clear, because the example below is ambiguous, given

  put "a" into tFoo[1]
  put "b" into tFoo[2]

would
  put tArray[tFoo] into tBar

evaluate as
tArray["a"]["b"]
or
tArray[1][2]

?



On 08/09/2021 14:20, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:

On 2021-09-08 13:09, Ben Rubinstein via use-livecode wrote:
I'm also excited by the items in this list, at least the ones that I 
understand.


I am a bit disturbed by the Tail Expressions one, because to the
extent that I do understand it, I don't see how this doesn't break
existing code that passes an array, and will do so in the worst way,
i.e. silently, leaving the developer to figure out what's going on by
the secondary or tertiary effects. Am I wrong?


It requires an explicit '...':

     put 1 into tFoo[1]
     put 2 into tFoo[2]

     myHandler tFoo -- passes a single argument: the array tFoo
     myHandler ... tFoo -- passes two arguments: 1, 2 (the elements of tFoo)

Interesting your missing of the all important operator being required reminds 
of a mistake I did make way back when I added the ability to use a sequence 
array as an array index...


   put tArray[tFoo] into tBar -- evaluates as tArray[1][2]

I really should have thought to require explicit syntax there. i.e.

   put tArray[... tFoo] into tBar

The reason here is performance - if I had done that it would mean the engine 
would known that in the case of:


   put tArray[tFoo]

That it will only ever generate a path of length 1 to index the array - rather 
than pretty much all array expressions potentially being unbounded in length.


You live, you learn.


I'm very pleased about constant expressions. I do wonder whether this
raft of changes might also be the moment to do something about this
nasty little weirdness:
https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=18390


Well constant expressions do alleviate that problem a bit:

     constant kFormatArg = format("\"%s\"")

     put format(kFormatArg, "Hello") => "Hello"
     put format("\"%s\"", "Hello") => "Hello"

i.e. The use of `\` escapes in format, generates characters which format 
otherwise skips over as content - except `\` itself, so you have to be a 
little careful there. i.e.


    constant kFormatArg = "%s"

    put format(kFormatArg, "Hello") => "\Hello"
    put format("\\%s", "Hello") => "\Hello"

In regards to your comment on that report then yes that is a good idea - 
albeit a breaking change. However, I think that is probably best considered as 
part of a package of changes which improve the expression of string constants 
generally. After all, if tooling is going to be updated, it is better to do so 
'all in one go', rather than in dribs and drabs. Multi-line string literals 
(as mentioned previously) would go into that 'package'.


Another thing we could consider at that point is adding a 'f' prefix to 
literals which imply they are C-style escaped (basically a contraction of 
'format')... Indeed, we could even make that a way to introduce variable 
interpolation.


Also, at that point I'd probably suggest that we also allow ' or " to delimit 
strings.


So f'...' or f"...", '...\'...', "...\"...", '''...''', """...""".

(Specifically here I'm proposing that there would be no semantic difference 
between ' and " - they would merely enable trivial inclusion of the other 
quote type).




I also wonder whether this might be the moment to introduce another
bit of (completely non-breaking) syntactic sugar:
https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=8945


Hehe - with integers being unbounded, there are plenty more version numbers in 
the future ;)


Warmest Regards,

Mark.



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Mark Waddingham via use-livecode]

On 2021-09-08 13:09, Ben Rubinstein via use-livecode wrote:
I'm also excited by the items in this list, at least the ones that I 
understand.


I am a bit disturbed by the Tail Expressions one, because to the
extent that I do understand it, I don't see how this doesn't break
existing code that passes an array, and will do so in the worst way,
i.e. silently, leaving the developer to figure out what's going on by
the secondary or tertiary effects. Am I wrong?


It requires an explicit '...':

put 1 into tFoo[1]
put 2 into tFoo[2]

myHandler tFoo -- passes a single argument: the array tFoo
myHandler ... tFoo -- passes two arguments: 1, 2 (the elements of 
tFoo)


Interesting your missing of the all important operator being required 
reminds of a mistake I did make way back when I added the ability to use 
a sequence array as an array index...


  put tArray[tFoo] into tBar -- evaluates as tArray[1][2]

I really should have thought to require explicit syntax there. i.e.

  put tArray[... tFoo] into tBar

The reason here is performance - if I had done that it would mean the 
engine would known that in the case of:


  put tArray[tFoo]

That it will only ever generate a path of length 1 to index the array - 
rather than pretty much all array expressions potentially being 
unbounded in length.


You live, you learn.


I'm very pleased about constant expressions. I do wonder whether this
raft of changes might also be the moment to do something about this
nasty little weirdness:
https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=18390


Well constant expressions do alleviate that problem a bit:

constant kFormatArg = format("\"%s\"")

put format(kFormatArg, "Hello") => "Hello"
put format("\"%s\"", "Hello") => "Hello"

i.e. The use of `\` escapes in format, generates characters which format 
otherwise skips over as content - except `\` itself, so you have to be a 
little careful there. i.e.


   constant kFormatArg = "%s"

   put format(kFormatArg, "Hello") => "\Hello"
   put format("\\%s", "Hello") => "\Hello"

In regards to your comment on that report then yes that is a good idea - 
albeit a breaking change. However, I think that is probably best 
considered as part of a package of changes which improve the expression 
of string constants generally. After all, if tooling is going to be 
updated, it is better to do so 'all in one go', rather than in dribs and 
drabs. Multi-line string literals (as mentioned previously) would go 
into that 'package'.


Another thing we could consider at that point is adding a 'f' prefix to 
literals which imply they are C-style escaped (basically a contraction 
of 'format')... Indeed, we could even make that a way to introduce 
variable interpolation.


Also, at that point I'd probably suggest that we also allow ' or " to 
delimit strings.


So f'...' or f"...", '...\'...', "...\"...", '''...''', """...""".

(Specifically here I'm proposing that there would be no semantic 
difference between ' and " - they would merely enable trivial inclusion 
of the other quote type).




I also wonder whether this might be the moment to introduce another
bit of (completely non-breaking) syntactic sugar:
https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=8945


Hehe - with integers being unbounded, there are plenty more version 
numbers in the future ;)


Warmest Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Mark Waddingham via use-livecode]

On 2021-09-08 11:35, Andre Garzia via use-livecode wrote:

I just don't understand this one, so no comment.


As I understand, this is LC version of the “spread operator”.  It
allows you to spread the elements of an array as the arguments to a
handler.

The code:

  put “an...@example.com ” into tDataA[1]
  put “Andre Garzia” into tDataA[2]

  sendEmail …tDataA

Is syntactically equivalent to:


  put “an...@example.com ” into tDataA[1]
  put “Andre Garzia” into tDataA[2]

  sendEmail tDataA[1], tDataA[2]

Which means that you can code the “sendEmail” command to have two
string arguments instead of an array, as shown below:

  command sendEmail pEmail, pFullName
// send your email
  end sendEmail

The spread operator will pass every array element as an argument to
the handler.


Yes - that is precisely what it is :)


It would be beneficial if this feature would also come paired a “rest
operator” that collected extra arguments in an array, so that we could
declare the “sendEmail” handler as

  command sendEmail pEmail, pFullName, …pMoreArgumentsA
// stuff
  end sendEmail

This way, if the call uses an array that contains more than two
elements, the remaining parameters are collected in the final
“pMoreArgumentsA” array. That if what I would like to have, LC didn’t
say anything about this but it is very common in other languages to
implement both operators at the same time.


Indeed.

The key thing here is that doing that adds to the handler signature 
syntax which I'd prefer to do as part of a more substantial improvement 
to the expressibility of that aspect of the language.


Therefore...


In the case of LiveCode there is an alternative though. We can use
“paramCount” and “param()” to grab the extra parameters, but that
requires us coding it while something like a “rest operator” do that
for us automatically.


The feature I omitted from the list and which does pair with the spread 
(or tail) operator is a tweak to the params function... Namely:


   params(N) => returns a sequence or params starting from the Nth

So in the above:

   command sendEmail pEmail, pFullName
 local tMoreArgumentsA
 put params(3) into tMoreArgumentsA
 ...
   end sendEmail

This is a direct evolution / useful addition to the current way existing 
handlers manipulate arguments - and, more importantly, saves a blob of 
code I've seen 100's of times in code which needs to forward arguments:


   command foo
 local tParams
 repeat with i = 1 to the paramCount
put param(i) into tParams[i]
 end repeat
 ...
   end foo

Also this feature is largely orthogonal to any tweak to handler 
signature (i.e. the merge operator, Andre suggests above) as it just 
manipulates the parameters as defined by the signature. For example, in 
the imagined case of a 'merge' clause:


   command merged pFoo, pRestA...
   put the paramCount into tCount -- gives 2
   put param(1) into tFoo -- would give pFoo
   put param(2) into tRestA - would give pRestA
   end merged

Here there are two parameters - pFoo, and an (array) pRestA which 
contains the rest of the parameters passed.


Warmest Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Ben Rubinstein via use-livecode]

I'm also excited by the items in this list, at least the ones that I understand.

I still haven't fully understood the one Alex raises below, but I'm content 
that it won't bother me until I do.


I am a bit disturbed by the Tail Expressions one, because to the extent that I 
do understand it, I don't see how this doesn't break existing code that passes 
an array, and will do so in the worst way, i.e. silently, leaving the 
developer to figure out what's going on by the secondary or tertiary effects. 
Am I wrong?


I'm very pleased about constant expressions. I do wonder whether this raft of 
changes might also be the moment to do something about this nasty little 
weirdness:

https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=18390

I also wonder whether this might be the moment to introduce another bit of 
(completely non-breaking) syntactic sugar:

https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=8945

Ben, eagerly anticipating


On 08/09/2021 08:50, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:

On 2021-09-08 01:33, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode wrote:

But
 put [1, 2, 3 ] into tVar2
isn't clear to me. If it was in Python it would be a list - but LC
doesn't have 'lists'.

Is it equivalent to
   put true into tVar2[1]
   put true into tVar2[2]
   put true into tVar2[3]    ??


Yes.

A sequence in LC is a numerically-keyed array where the keys range from 
1...the number of elements.


Admittedly they are (currently) still implemented as a 'normal' array 
internally, but they do have different functionality in `repeat for each 
element` which iterates in numeric order, and not hash order.



Why can't I say
    put { myvar: "first", anothervar: tWhatever } into tVar2   ?


So if one treats array literals as an equivalent to an ordered sequence of put 
statements (which is the canonical interpretation really!) then there is, in 
principal, no problem with allowing non-constant expressions for both key and 
value.


Certainly non-constant value expressions are no problem at all, and would be 
included in the initial implementation... I'm not averse to non-constant key 
expressions either really, I'm just a little skittish over the resulting 
reservation of ':' (which is probably fine), and the interplay with variables 
and unquoted-literals (more in terms of difference that might occur between 
what the engine thinks something means and what the writer intended).



But I was disappointed to not see my two biggest 'constant' wishes

1. multi-line constants e.g. amongst other ways, Python's

put """line 1

line 2

line 3""" into tVar


I'm not averse to the idea of multi-line literals - although constant-folding 
does go a long way to assuage the problems they solve in many cases.


e.g. You can use format("dfsdf\ndfgdfg") for short strings with newlines in, 
and any chained sequence of concatenations of constants will be evaluated at 
compile time.


The main issue here is the effect on tooling really - any code which processes 
LiveCode Script in any way would need to change to take them into account. 
This not only includes syntax highlighters and editors but any code which 
groks script for other reason. This means that what might be a relatively 
simple change to the engine, actually introduces a ripple effect where the 
whole implementation burden is a great deal higher.


[ I'd point out that I don't think there is a single piece of tooling in 
existence which actually fully supports the *current* lexical structure of 
LiveCode - which has not actually changed since day dot - including the 
existing Script Editor ]


That being said, in terms of what multiline syntax I'd propose, if it were to 
be added - I'd be in favour of Swift's model. Most other languages have added 
multiline strings with no thought to code structure, however the Swift team 
really have:


    var foo = """
  Line 1 - spaces before stripped
  Line 2 - spaces before stripped
  """

There are two simple rules at play here.

The first is that no string content is present on the lines containing """ - 
i.e. the string content starts on the line after the opening """, and the 
string content ends on the line before the closing """.


The second is that whitespace is stripped from each line of the string content 
based on the whitespace before the final """. i.e. If the """ is indented by 3 
spaces, then 3 spaces are removed from all lines of the content.


This means indenting of such literals is no different from any other construct 
- and is merely predicated on identifying the lines in such a literal as 
continuations (i.e. each line is an extension to the last).



2. global constants. Most compiled languages will allow an 'include'
file which can specify constants, which you can then rely on to be
defined properly (and the same) everywhere. So that's probably too
much at odds with LC's model - but could be handled by 'protect'
global variables (or, I'm sure, another 10 ways that Mark W. could
think of).


So if by 'global 

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Keith Martin via use-livecode]

> On Sep 7, 2021, at 11:04 PM, Martin Koob via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> My wife and I have an ongoing disagreement about the term 'couple of’ in 
> terms of counting.  I say it means around 2 or 3ish.  She says it means 2. 
> Further she says if you wanted to say 3 or 4 you would say ‘a few’.

I'm the kind of person that distinguishes between 'like' (exclusive: similar to 
but not) and 'such as' (inclusive: similar to and part of the comparison set), 
so this is coming from a position of pedantry, but that's because I am a 
writer...

Strictly speaking, 'a couple' means two, no more and no less. In casual use 
(when counting, not when referring to relationship partnerships) it isn't 
unusual for it to be used in place of 'a few' and possibly mean three or even 
four, but it's not technically *correct.*

I too hope your wife's logic is what holds true!

:)

k
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Andre Garzia via use-livecode]

Hi Alex,

> On 8 Sep 2021, at 01:33, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> I just don't understand this one, so no comment.


As I understand, this is LC version of the “spread operator”.  It allows you to 
spread the elements of an array as the arguments to a handler.

The code:

  put “an...@example.com ” into tDataA[1]
  put “Andre Garzia” into tDataA[2]

  sendEmail …tDataA

Is syntactically equivalent to:


  put “an...@example.com ” into tDataA[1]
  put “Andre Garzia” into tDataA[2]

  sendEmail tDataA[1], tDataA[2]

Which means that you can code the “sendEmail” command to have two string 
arguments instead of an array, as shown below:

  command sendEmail pEmail, pFullName
// send your email
  end sendEmail

The spread operator will pass every array element as an argument to the 
handler. 

It would be beneficial if this feature would also come paired a “rest operator” 
that collected extra arguments in an array, so that we could declare the 
“sendEmail” handler as

  command sendEmail pEmail, pFullName, …pMoreArgumentsA
// stuff
  end sendEmail

This way, if the call uses an array that contains more than two elements, the 
remaining parameters are collected in the final “pMoreArgumentsA” array. That 
if what I would like to have, LC didn’t say anything about this but it is very 
common in other languages to implement both operators at the same time.

In the case of LiveCode there is an alternative though. We can use “paramCount” 
and “param()” to grab the extra parameters, but that requires us coding it 
while something like a “rest operator” do that for us automatically.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Mark Waddingham via use-livecode]

On 2021-09-08 01:33, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode wrote:

But
 put [1, 2, 3 ] into tVar2
isn't clear to me. If it was in Python it would be a list - but LC
doesn't have 'lists'.

Is it equivalent to
   put true into tVar2[1]
   put true into tVar2[2]
   put true into tVar2[3]    ??


Yes.

A sequence in LC is a numerically-keyed array where the keys range from 
1...the number of elements.


Admittedly they are (currently) still implemented as a 'normal' array 
internally, but they do have different functionality in `repeat for each 
element` which iterates in numeric order, and not hash order.



Why can't I say
    put { myvar: "first", anothervar: tWhatever } into tVar2   ?


So if one treats array literals as an equivalent to an ordered sequence 
of put statements (which is the canonical interpretation really!) then 
there is, in principal, no problem with allowing non-constant 
expressions for both key and value.


Certainly non-constant value expressions are no problem at all, and 
would be included in the initial implementation... I'm not averse to 
non-constant key expressions either really, I'm just a little skittish 
over the resulting reservation of ':' (which is probably fine), and the 
interplay with variables and unquoted-literals (more in terms of 
difference that might occur between what the engine thinks something 
means and what the writer intended).



But I was disappointed to not see my two biggest 'constant' wishes

1. multi-line constants e.g. amongst other ways, Python's

put """line 1

line 2

line 3""" into tVar


I'm not averse to the idea of multi-line literals - although 
constant-folding does go a long way to assuage the problems they solve 
in many cases.


e.g. You can use format("dfsdf\ndfgdfg") for short strings with newlines 
in, and any chained sequence of concatenations of constants will be 
evaluated at compile time.


The main issue here is the effect on tooling really - any code which 
processes LiveCode Script in any way would need to change to take them 
into account. This not only includes syntax highlighters and editors but 
any code which groks script for other reason. This means that what might 
be a relatively simple change to the engine, actually introduces a 
ripple effect where the whole implementation burden is a great deal 
higher.


[ I'd point out that I don't think there is a single piece of tooling in 
existence which actually fully supports the *current* lexical structure 
of LiveCode - which has not actually changed since day dot - including 
the existing Script Editor ]


That being said, in terms of what multiline syntax I'd propose, if it 
were to be added - I'd be in favour of Swift's model. Most other 
languages have added multiline strings with no thought to code 
structure, however the Swift team really have:


   var foo = """
 Line 1 - spaces before stripped
 Line 2 - spaces before stripped
 """

There are two simple rules at play here.

The first is that no string content is present on the lines containing 
""" - i.e. the string content starts on the line after the opening """, 
and the string content ends on the line before the closing """.


The second is that whitespace is stripped from each line of the string 
content based on the whitespace before the final """. i.e. If the """ is 
indented by 3 spaces, then 3 spaces are removed from all lines of the 
content.


This means indenting of such literals is no different from any other 
construct - and is merely predicated on identifying the lines in such a 
literal as continuations (i.e. each line is an extension to the last).



2. global constants. Most compiled languages will allow an 'include'
file which can specify constants, which you can then rely on to be
defined properly (and the same) everywhere. So that's probably too
much at odds with LC's model - but could be handled by 'protect'
global variables (or, I'm sure, another 10 ways that Mark W. could
think of).


So if by 'global constant' you mean being able to define a token which 
means the same thing in all scripts - then yes, that does not really fit 
at all as it breaks the logical independence of all scripts in terms of 
what tokens mean.


Put another way, all scripts would have to be recompiled when a script 
defines such a thing, which would then potentially change the meaning of 
any script if it happens to internally use said token for something else 
(in the worse case scripts which did not have syntax errors before might 
do so after). This is why you have to declare global variables in all 
scripts which use them.


The request for 'global constants' comes up repeatedly, but I don't 
really recall anyone proposing a single use-case which couldn't be 
solved in a 'better' (relative to xTalkiness existing featurs) way :D


Warmest Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Richmond via use-livecode]

It does look exciting, but, as usual, the proof of the pudding is in the 
eating and I am sure,
initially at least, there will be a few bits of nutshell left in there 
for us to jag our teeth on:
but that's to be expected, and our job is to report back any nutty bits 
to LiveCode centre.


My thoughts are, as usual, retro, insofar as I hope the syntax changes 
while being clever
will not mean that stacks written WITHOUT those new syntactic features 
will not be openable and

usuable by earlier versions of LiveCode.

On 8.09.21 3:33, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode wrote:


On 07/09/2021 23:01, Martin Koob via use-livecode wrote:

Hi all.

There has been lots of discussion on the list and forums about the 
one part of Kevin’s announcement regarding the changes in licensing 
but nothing that I see on the other major part of the announcement — 
the new features coming in LiveCode 10.
Good idea for discussion - but we may be shooting in the dark, until 
either the DP or another sneak peek.

New Syntax in 10
Array Literals


Not sure I fully understand this one yet.
    put { "a": "b", "c":"d" } into tVar
seems clear - and is explained with an equivalent in existing code.

But
 put [1, 2, 3 ] into tVar2
isn't clear to me. If it was in Python it would be a list - but LC 
doesn't have 'lists'.


Is it equivalent to
   put true into tVar2[1]
   put true into tVar2[2]
   put true into tVar2[3]    ??

Or if not, then what is it equivalent to ?

But generally, I like the idea. Though it does just make me want to 
ask for more :-)


Why just constants ?

Why can't I say
    put { myvar: "first", anothervar: tWhatever } into tVar2   ?


Constant Expressions


About time. I trust you can actually do
   constant Kmin=100, kMax=200, kMid=(kmin+kmax)/2


Static Switch Optimization


Yes - good thing.I have a bunch of code (which I might not want to 
show in public), where this will make a significant difference. I was 
worried by the statement that "... recognises cases where all the 
cases are constant", but realised that you can always cover the other 
cases by putting them into a separate switch/if-then-else in the 
'default' case.




Constant folding


I confess I assumed that was already there :-)

But I was disappointed to not see my two biggest 'constant' wishes

1. multi-line constants e.g. amongst other ways, Python's

put """line 1

line 2

line 3""" into tVar

2. global constants. Most compiled languages will allow an 'include' 
file which can specify constants, which you can then rely on to be 
defined properly (and the same) everywhere. So that's probably too 
much at odds with LC's model - but could be handled by 'protect' 
global variables (or, I'm sure, another 10 ways that Mark W. could 
think of).



Tail Expressions


I just don't understand this one, so no comment.

Anyway I am excited to see the first DP which is promised in the next 
couple of weeks.  My wife and I have an ongoing disagreement about 
the term 'couple of’ in terms of counting.  I say it means around 2 
or 3ish.  She says it means 2. Further she says if you wanted to say 
3 or 4 you would say ‘a few’.  So in this case I am hoping she is 
right and I am wrong and we do get the new DP in a couple of weeks 
and not a few weeks. :-)


That sounds like a 'couple' discussion I wouldn't want to get in the 
middle of. Even worse than whether a sign on the freeway/motorway 
saying "xyz next exit" means the immediately coming exit (i.e. 'this 
exit' or 'next exit'), or the following one. Caused me no end of 
trouble when I first moved to the US :-)


Alex.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Alex Tweedly via use-livecode]

On 07/09/2021 23:01, Martin Koob via use-livecode wrote:

Hi all.

There has been lots of discussion on the list and forums about the one part of 
Kevin’s announcement regarding the changes in licensing but nothing that I see 
on the other major part of the announcement — the new features coming in 
LiveCode 10.
Good idea for discussion - but we may be shooting in the dark, until 
either the DP or another sneak peek.

New Syntax in 10
Array Literals


Not sure I fully understand this one yet.
    put { "a": "b", "c":"d" } into tVar
seems clear - and is explained with an equivalent in existing code.

But
 put [1, 2, 3 ] into tVar2
isn't clear to me. If it was in Python it would be a list - but LC 
doesn't have 'lists'.


Is it equivalent to
   put true into tVar2[1]
   put true into tVar2[2]
   put true into tVar2[3]    ??

Or if not, then what is it equivalent to ?

But generally, I like the idea. Though it does just make me want to ask 
for more :-)


Why just constants ?

Why can't I say
    put { myvar: "first", anothervar: tWhatever } into tVar2   ?


Constant Expressions


About time. I trust you can actually do
   constant Kmin=100, kMax=200, kMid=(kmin+kmax)/2


Static Switch Optimization


Yes - good thing.I have a bunch of code (which I might not want to show 
in public), where this will make a significant difference. I was worried 
by the statement that "... recognises cases where all the cases are 
constant", but realised that you can always cover the other cases by 
putting them into a separate switch/if-then-else in the 'default' case.




Constant folding


I confess I assumed that was already there :-)

But I was disappointed to not see my two biggest 'constant' wishes

1. multi-line constants e.g. amongst other ways, Python's

put """line 1

line 2

line 3""" into tVar

2. global constants. Most compiled languages will allow an 'include' 
file which can specify constants, which you can then rely on to be 
defined properly (and the same) everywhere. So that's probably too much 
at odds with LC's model - but could be handled by 'protect' global 
variables (or, I'm sure, another 10 ways that Mark W. could think of).



Tail Expressions


I just don't understand this one, so no comment.


Anyway I am excited to see the first DP which is promised in the next couple of 
weeks.  My wife and I have an ongoing disagreement about the term 'couple of’ 
in terms of counting.  I say it means around 2 or 3ish.  She says it means 2. 
Further she says if you wanted to say 3 or 4 you would say ‘a few’.  So in this 
case I am hoping she is right and I am wrong and we do get the new DP in a 
couple of weeks and not a few weeks. :-)


That sounds like a 'couple' discussion I wouldn't want to get in the 
middle of. Even worse than whether a sign on the freeway/motorway saying 
"xyz next exit" means the immediately coming exit (i.e. 'this exit' or 
'next exit'), or the following one. Caused me no end of trouble when I 
first moved to the US :-)


Alex.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[kee nethery via use-livecode]

Still looking for a way to do in-app payments for macOS App Store apps. 
Thanks for the list of all the new stuff.
Kee

> On Sep 7, 2021, at 3:01 PM, Martin Koob via use-livecode 
>  wrote:

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[Bernard Devlin via use-livecode]

Hi Martin

I'm interested in the web assembly for HTML5.  I had actually written two
different apps which I would have done as HTML5 but the loading time alone
was just to slow. The increased loading speed alone should now make these
possible as HTML5. There are still a lot of other things that are difficult
to do with the current HTML5 deployment to make it anything like a
fat-client deployment. Still, for my purposes it can't even get off the
ground without the initial load speed improvement.

I am expecting the M1 build to bring about increased performance, but I
have no complaints with the current Rosetta speed on M1 (but the 10x faster
startup time of M1 Macs over Intel Macs could give us some idea of how much
of a speed increase we might see).

I like the array literals idea. That's something I've wanted for so, so
long.  And the constants built from expressions is a nice thing to have.
Having named rather than merely positional parameters for handlers would
also be something I'd like (Python does a few things right).  But these
things are basically syntactic sugar.

With Switch statements I always try to put the options in order of greatest
likelihood first, but that can't always make a difference if conditions
follow a more even distribution. Still, it's one less thing to have to
think about.

But I would hope there are even bigger things coming with version 10 than
these.

Regards, Bernard

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:03 PM Martin Koob via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> There has been lots of discussion on the list and forums about the one
> part of Kevin’s announcement regarding the changes in licensing but nothing
> that I see on the other major part of the announcement — the new features
> coming in LiveCode 10.
>
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: LiveCode 10 - what are your thoughts on the new features?

[matthias rebbe via use-livecode]

> Brand New Web Deployment Experience usingWeb Assembly (WASM)
>   - I have no idea what WASM is.  There have always been complaints about 
> web deployment in the past.  Do you think this will make a difference?
> 

https://www.qt.io/qt-examples-for-webassembly 


Overview of supported Browsers and roadmap
https://webassembly.org/roadmap/


See some samples  created with QT in action, you'll need at least Firefox 91 or 
Chrome 90 for this. 
https://www.qt.io/qt-examples-for-webassembly 







___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode