I have restrained myself - for the moment, at least! :)
Kay C Lan wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Richmond Mathewson <
richmondmathew...@gmail.com> wrote:
I cannot restrain myself
they should
be working overtime to set the masses free:
something they are certainly not doing by
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Richmond Mathewson <
richmondmathew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I cannot restrain myself
> they should
> be working overtime to set the masses free:
> something they are certainly not doing by pumping buckets
> of money into the "People's Republic" of China - the
> P
I cannot restrain myself from pointing out that
communism is as communism does; as Bulgaria
is a living monument to communism and its
knock-on effects.
Why bother to invest a little extra money in an
electrical generator, reduce the profit margin
slightly, end up with a better end-product
(so, ma
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:17 AM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> Richmond Mathewson wrote:
>
>> J. Landman Gay wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I think we should next discuss the practice of putting little
>>> sticker labels on every single individual piece of fruit in the supermarket.
>>> If you really want to p
Scott Rossi wrote:
Recently, J. Landman Gay wrote:
Personally I think we should next discuss the practice of putting little
sticker labels on every single individual piece of fruit in the
supermarket. If you really want to push my buttons, that'll do it.
Dude: I saw a food-related program abo
Well, at last I understand a man in his 50s who worked with me in Saudi
Arabia
who said something about old fruits being able to recognise each other
from a distance.
Judy Perry wrote:
The first one at least "reacts" to aromas given off... like our own
noses couldn't do that :-P
Judy
On Sun
The first one at least "reacts" to aromas given off... like our own noses
couldn't do that :-P
Judy
On Sun, 10 May 2009, Mark Wieder wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/4343032/RipeSense-labels-will-tell-you-when-fruit-is-ripe.html
http://www.dailymail.co.
Scott-
Sunday, May 10, 2009, 11:38:17 AM, you wrote:
> Recently, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>> Personally I think we should next discuss the practice of putting little
>> sticker labels on every single individual piece of fruit in the
>> supermarket. If you really want to push my buttons, that'll do
Recently, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> Personally I think we should next discuss the practice of putting little
> sticker labels on every single individual piece of fruit in the
> supermarket. If you really want to push my buttons, that'll do it.
Dude: I saw a food-related program about a company who
Well, I don't know about anything else, but you can, at least, pat yourself
on the back for spotting a HUGE leg-pull!
Love and kisses, Richmond.
J. Landman Gay wrote:
Richmond Mathewson wrote:
J. Landman Gay wrote:
Personally I think we should next discuss the practice of putting
little stick
Richmond Mathewson wrote:
J. Landman Gay wrote:
Personally I think we should next discuss the practice of putting
little sticker labels on every single individual piece of fruit in the
supermarket. If you really want to push my buttons, that'll do it.
'Tis nothing! I know a chap in Bulgaria
J. Landman Gay wrote:
Personally I think we should next discuss the practice of putting
little sticker labels on every single individual piece of fruit in the
supermarket. If you really want to push my buttons, that'll do it.
'Tis nothing! I know a chap in Bulgaria who sticks sticky labels on
Now must I send bribes to end this "debate"?
On second thought, yes, please send bribes.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
Mark Wieder wrote:
Stephen-
Saturday, May 9, 2009, 11:55:13 PM, you wrote:
Now must I send bribes to end this "debate"?
ROTFL. Not to worry - comes up once a year or so, along with the
"what's wrong with globals?" question, just enough to rattle folks'
cages, then dies down for a while. Feel
Bernard-
Sunday, May 10, 2009, 2:08:09 AM, you wrote:
> The interesting thing is that both Jim/Mark & Jacques are right.
...and *that* I think is the real strength of rev/xtalk. Not that
there aren't "wrong" ways to do things (been there, done that, got the
t-shirt), but there are many "right" w
Graham Samuel wrote:
> As an aside, I noticed that if I start a repeat statement with
> something like:
>
> repeat with i = 1 to 20
>
> even with ExplicitVars on, the local variable "i" does not have to be
> declared. I could not find an explanation of this in the docs, but
> perhaps I didn't
Richmond-
Sunday, May 10, 2009, 2:46:45 AM, you wrote:
> What constitutes "declaring a variable" is difficult to define because
Semantic games aside, the act of "declaring" a variable is a statement
of the form "I intend to use a variable of name x in my code" thusly:
local x
the other process
What constitutes "declaring a variable" is difficult to define because
the minute
I type:
put "Graham" into SAMUEL, the variable SAMUEL "pops into existence", and
it could be argued that the first mention of a variable constitutes its
declaration.
And if that is what constitutes "declaring a
Another side-effect of explicit variables is that some code may well
behave differently.
Consider this:
local tVar, tSQL
if tVar is empty then ...
Since explict vars requires the declaration, it will affect the result
of the following conditional. With the declaration then the condition
will
I think all this proves that different people can and do use
Revolution / xTalk differently. Personally I am persuaded by Jim's
argument, and indeed I have changed: when I first came to xTalk after
years of using languages where declaration of variables was mandatory,
I relished the freedom
The interesting thing is that both Jim/Mark & Jacques are right.
Like Jacques I rarely have a major problem with mis-spelt variables.
On the occasions when I do have a problem then the error message will
usually point me to where the problem lies, and if not then the fact
that a variable contains
I love it when the Titans of Transcript battle we learn so much
-
Stephen Barncard
San Francisco
http://barncard.com
2009/5/9 Jim Bufalini
> Mark Wieder wrote:
>
> > I recognize hyperbole when I see it, but nonetheless I don't think you
> > can have 8 lines of d
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:
>
> Saturday, May 9, 2009, 11:55:13 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Now must I send bribes to end this "debate"?
>
> ROTFL. Not to worry - comes up once a year or so, along with the
> "what's wrong with globals?" question, just enough to rattle folks'
> ca
Stephen-
Saturday, May 9, 2009, 11:55:13 PM, you wrote:
> Now must I send bribes to end this "debate"?
ROTFL. Not to worry - comes up once a year or so, along with the
"what's wrong with globals?" question, just enough to rattle folks'
cages, then dies down for a while. Feel free to chime in the
Personally, I think all the wrong thinking people in this world are right.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/m
Agreed.
Now must I send bribes to end this "debate"?
On 5/10/09 2:50 AM, "Richmond Mathewson"
wrote:
> God may forgive you, but the rest of us will . . .
>
> love you and cherish you for initiating a useful and
> stimulating discussion!
>
> And, the moral of the story is: you can be bl**dy-m
God may forgive you, but the rest of us will . . .
love you and cherish you for initiating a useful and
stimulating discussion!
And, the moral of the story is: you can be bl**dy-minded like me,
or you can be bl**dy-minded like somebody else, or (what a luxury)
you can be bl**dy-minded in you own
Well.. God.. Sorry all for starting this. :)
Use what you want. I'll keep it on cause I'm used to that type of
environment. Used to declaring variables. And it's in my head.
On 5/10/09 1:09 AM, "Joe Lewis Wilkins" wrote:
> Following this thread has pushed another one of my buttons and I
> ca
Joe-
Saturday, May 9, 2009, 10:09:15 PM, you wrote:
>vigilant and knowledgeable within all aspects of our lives. Not
>declaring vars merely promotes sloppiness and, eventually, stupidity.
I've found that I can declare vars and still be perfectly stupid,
thank you.
--
-Mark Wieder
mwie...@ahso
Following this thread has pushed another one of my buttons and I
cannot resist getting on my soap-box and inserting my two-bits.
We have "all" become accustomed to protecting ourselves from
ourselves. To the point where some of us pass laws requiring that
everyone protect themselves. I'm ta
Mark Wieder wrote:
> I recognize hyperbole when I see it, but nonetheless I don't think you
> can have 8 lines of declarations and three lines of actual script (and
> of course someone will post some code that proves me wrong). If you
> come across a handler like this then you have at least five l
Dear Jacque,
To each his/her own. ;-) And, of course, we all know you are a novelist (in
English) and one who probably doesn't use a spell checker. ;-)
But, just to clarify, so that what I said is not misinterpreted. I never
said there is anything you cannot "do" without explicitVariables turned
Jacque-
Saturday, May 9, 2009, 6:01:53 PM, you wrote:
Ah... I *knew* this would push Jacque's buttons...
> 1. The main strength of xtalk is that you do not have to declare or type
> variables. Sticking them up there at the top of every handler removes
> one of the main advantages of using Rev i
Jim Bufalini wrote:
- It allows you to distinguish globals from script locals and constants both
at the script level and handler level.
You can do that without declaring them explicitly too.
- It allows you to declare globals from inside a handler (which creates a
"semi" global that is only
Alex-
Saturday, May 9, 2009, 5:16:10 PM, you wrote:
> The advantage is that if yuor tipyng is as dab as nime tehn oyur erorrs
> teg caugth soneer :-)
Would that it worked that way. But if you type
put 42 into myVarr
instead of
put 42 into myVar
then rev will happily create a new variable for
Richmond Mathewson wrote:
Funny, I've never declared a variable in Runtime Revolution; I thought
that
was something that went out with PASCAL: even my BBC doesn't require me
to that in BBC BASIC. I remember feeling 'odd' when I got my BBC (ah,
all
those years ago, out in the desert) that BBC B
Richmond Mathewson wrote:
> May be this is a goofy question; but it can probably bear
> the asking one more time:
>
> What, if any, is the advantage of declaring variables in RR ?
- Unles yu ar an perfct typst who has nevr made a typo and nevar use a speel
checker, explicitVariables instantly in
Force of habit. And there are many languages that require variable checking.
And indeed typing. Like C, C++, C#, VB , Python, JS, AS, ST, Perl, and on
and on. Anyway it's one of Revolution strengths not to requiring variable
typing and creation.
On 5/9/09 4:09 PM, "Richmond Mathewson" wrote:
>
Beats me: I think I'll continue 'conjuring variables out of the air':
put "Who's afraid of undeclared variables?" && "bah, humbug!" into
POOBAH :)
stephen barncard wrote:
2009/5/9 Richmond Mathewson
What, if any, is the advantage of declaring variables in RR ?
Better error che
2009/5/9 Richmond Mathewson
> What, if any, is the advantage of declaring variables in RR ?
>
Better error checking, I guess.
> How do you declare variables in RR ?
>
local tLocalVar = "This is a local string"
local x,y,z
global tGlobalvar = "This is a global string"
---
Funny, I've never declared a variable in Runtime Revolution; I thought that
was something that went out with PASCAL: even my BBC doesn't require me
to that in BBC BASIC. I remember feeling 'odd' when I got my BBC (ah, all
those years ago, out in the desert) that BBC BASIC didn't even need the
LE
Mark Wieder wrote:
> OK - I think I see what you're doing. If I just put that into a script
> then I can compile it with or without strict compilation mode. But
> then there's nothing to execute. I'm not really clear on what is
> getting compiled at that point. I think as far as the compiler is
Stephen Cox wrote:
> Ok I just created a new stack and put:
>
> local temp
> put "1234" into temp
> put "1234" into kemp
>
> And it compiles with no errors. Maybe I missed a checkbox someplace. Is
> "Strict Compilation Mode" in the Script Editor section the only option
> that
> has to be enabled
Stephen-
Saturday, May 9, 2009, 11:10:46 AM, you wrote:
> Ok I just created a new stack and put:
> local temp
> put "1234" into temp
> put "1234" into kemp
> And it compiles with no errors. Maybe I missed a checkbox someplace. Is
> "Strict Compilation Mode" in the Script Editor section the only
Ok I just created a new stack and put:
local temp
put "1234" into temp
put "1234" into kemp
And it compiles with no errors. Maybe I missed a checkbox someplace. Is
"Strict Compilation Mode" in the Script Editor section the only option that
has to be enabled?
On 5/9/09 12:57 PM, "Mark Wieder" w
Humm I just compiled this and get nothing.
On 5/9/09 12:57 PM, "Mark Wieder" wrote:
> Stephen-
>
> Saturday, May 9, 2009, 9:39:27 AM, you wrote:
>
>> I've run across something. Even with Strict Compilation Mode on the compiler
>> doesn't throw out an error if it sees some undeclared variables
Stephen-
Saturday, May 9, 2009, 9:39:27 AM, you wrote:
> I've run across something. Even with Strict Compilation Mode on the compiler
> doesn't throw out an error if it sees some undeclared variables. So...
> Local temp
> Put "1234" into temp
> Put "1234" into kemp
> The compiles misses this co
I've run across something. Even with Strict Compilation Mode on the compiler
doesn't throw out an error if it sees some undeclared variables. So...
Local temp
Put "1234" into temp
Put "1234" into kemp
The compiles misses this completely. Of course it works cause you can create
variables on the fl
48 matches
Mail list logo
