Hi Risto and all:

I have been looking at the 2.7 alpha release and I have a few
comments. The functions that deal with setting a variables from some
context seem to have different calling conventions

    copy, empty, pop, shift 

all take "<name> %<var>" as arguments while:

    exists, getsize, getaliases, getltime, getctime

take "%<var> <name>". Is there a reason for this discrepency? I can
see getting really confused about which goes where depending on the
function. I would suggest making all of them consistant and use
"<name> %<var>" for all the functions above.

Functions like assign, eval, call or lcall sensibly have the variable
as the first argument since the second argument is potentially
multiple words long (a string and perl code, param lists etc).

Also to make while/if more useful I think a shortcut like:

   if exists(<name>) ( action_list ) else ( action_list2 )

   while exists(<name>) ( action_list )

is more readable compared to:

   exists <name> %B; if %B ( action_list ) else ( action_list2 )

   exists <name> %B; while %B ( action_list; exists <name> %B )

In general maybe any function that sets a variable can return that
value for an if or while condition clause. So 'exists' can be replaced
by 'getsize', 'getaliases', 'pop', 'getltime' ....

--
                                -- rouilj
John Rouillard
===========================================================================
My employers don't acknowledge my existence much less my opinions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial
Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support
Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services
Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers
http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d
_______________________________________________
Simple-evcorr-users mailing list
Simple-evcorr-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simple-evcorr-users

Reply via email to