> On 11 Aug 2017, at 7:02 am, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> Except that's wrong. :)
> I tend to use 0 as the initial value, and increment at the top of the loop:
> local tIndex
> put 0 into tIndex
> repeat for each line tLine in tLines
> add 1 to tIndex
> — code
> end repeat
> I've found two benefits from this habit:
> 1. (minor) Clearer distinction between unincremented and incremented counter.
> 2. (major) I can "next repeat" at any point in the block and know that the
> counter is appropriately updated.
> Indeed, it was a runaway loop many years ago that set me know this path.
Aha… well it probably depends on what you are using tIndex for but yes your
pattern is much more reliable if tIndex is meant to represent the line number.
If on the other hand tIndex is meant to only be incremented if you haven’t
exited the loop at some point while processing tLine then you may want the
other pattern so perhaps both have value as examples but I’m not sure how one
would name the two different patterns. I guess you could do this which is
put 0 into tIndex
repeat for each line tLine in tLines
— code for ensuring tIndex should be incremented
add 1 to tIndex
— code for using tIndex
> All this raises a bigger question: can we for now provide some sparse
> minimums and perhaps consider adding more later if truly needed?
> Saves work for you folks, and obviates the need to have what would likely be
> really long threads here about different coding styles (or whether all
> possible styles should be supported in Prefs - "Damnation to the dangling
> 'thens'!" <g>).
Sparse minimums are fine. I just need a few examples for the moment. Down the
track once you all see _why_ I’m asking then we can expand on things a bit ;-)
use-livecode mailing list
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription