Alex- Wednesday, June 9, 2004, 4:11:53 PM, you wrote:
AT> 1. Simple script. AT> put "something" into field1 AT> Of course, what I meant was AT> put "something" into field field1 AT> so it was disappearing into an unintended local variable. Yup. I think many of us have been here before in starting out. Put quotes around any of the runrev objects and you'll stay out of trouble here. put "something" into field "field1" --no problem put "something" into "field1" --error AT> When I finally spotted this, I decided I should turn on explicitVariables - AT> but the documentation warns against doing this in development mode (I AT> can't actually find this paragraph again - but there was definitely a AT> paragraph about "this can help you find hard to debug problems. If you use AT> this, you should use "Suspend Development Tools" to avoid AT> confusion"). Does this really cause problems ? I always have explicitVariables turned on. I've read the warnings and I continue to ignore them. Even if I didn't have it turned on, I would always explicitly declare my variables. But I do think that whatever possible problems explicitVariables may cause are far outweighed by having the compiler catch some errors before they cause any real trouble. AT> I don't think I've ever encountered a language where a valid expression AT> could cause unwanted side-effects in an expression using only a single AT> instance of an operator. Sigh. ...I may be wrong, but I don't think I've ever encountered a language where this wasn't the case. Take, for example, in C the difference between = and ==. How many times have you typed if (c = 3) instead of if (c == 3) ? I've gotten into the C habit of writing if (3 == c) just to avoid those kinds of things. -- -Mark Wieder [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
