Rob Cozens wrote:
Moi:
if recordNumber = 1 then set the disabled of button "Previous
Record" to false
else set the disabled of button "Previous Record" to true
Should be:
if recordNumber = 1 then set the disabled of button "Previous
Record" to true
else set the disabled of button "Previous Record" to false
But that wasn't my main point.
In my reply to Josh, I noted his request would break existing syntax.
IMO that should end the discussion.
(I may have got lost in the length of this thread, but ...) I don't see
what would break existing syntax.
The proposal I remember is to allow
<container> = <expression>
anywhere a statement is allowed - i.e. as a statement on a (logical)
line, or following an IF <expr> THEN ...
Your example was
set the disabled of button "Previous Record" to (recordNumber = 1)
i.e.
SET <container> TO <expression>
which wouldn't look much like the new (optional) syntax to any parser I
can think of. The fact that "recordnumber = 1" *could* be an expression,
or *could* be a statement shouldn't be a problem - the context will
*always* tell you which it is; currently Transcript doesn't allow
expressions to be written where a statement is required, so there is no
ambiguity.
The only somewhat odd, almost ambiguous, case would be
x = y = 5
which could mean the same as
put (y=5) into x
or *could*, if RR chose, mean the same as
x=5; y=5
(i.e. as it does in other languages). But that's an ambiguity in a
newly-allowed case, and so can be resolved and documented from the start.
If there is any case that you can find that is ambiguous to a standard
recursive descent parser, please tell us. (I assume RR uses a parser
that is at least as capable as a trad recursive descent one - probably
it's more capable).
FWIW (i.e. nothing :-), I would love to have the option of writing
"x=1" instead of "put 1 into x". There isn't a day, barely an hour,
that goes by when I'm working in Rev that I don't trip over that. I keep
thinking I'll "get over it", but I think I just passed the two-year mark
as a Rev user, so I have to admit I'm not going to get used to it as
long as I sometimes use other languages as well. If I could ever become
solely a Rev coder I might have a chance - but as long as the range of
problems I am interested in is so wide that Rev isn't the best tool for
them all, that's not going to happen.
BTW - (with wicked grin on face) - if we did convince RR to allow
x = 1
should we also ask for
x += 1 # I'd say "yes"
and how about
x++ # I'd say "no, let's retain some modicum of good taste :-)"
--
Alex Tweedly http://www.tweedly.net
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/387 - Release Date: 12/07/2006
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
