On 20 Jun 2007, at 16:20, Jim Ault wrote:
On 6/19/07 9:40 PM, "Björnke von Gierke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is looking completely wrong at the issue. A variable should be
changeable, it's in the definition of the name. If a variable is not
changeable it should be renamed to "constant" or maybe
"don'ttouchthisthingy".
Variable means that it can be defined, but not necessarily at any
time to
any value.
Maybe to the professional uber geek. Every other person will tell you
that variable in this context is the same as changeable. Of course you
could argue that variable could mean erratic, as in unpredictably
changing, but I'm sure you wouldn't want a language that depends on
such a definition either.
In any programming language, or scripting language, the term 'variable'
comes with the discipline of 'type casting', which means not all
variables
are the same, or same type, or serve the same purpose.
Don't make me take out the dreaded "everyone jumps out of the
window..." sentence.
...
Here (the number of lines in field " colorsList") is evaluated before
any
deletions, and Rev does not stop to re-evaluate. Of course, this loop
will
generate an error as soon as there is no "line x" because of deletions.
You talk about a similar problem with repeat with x = y to z, and yes
you make a valid argument to change the behaviour for that loop too.
Some uses of variable definitions work faster and better if they are
cast,
then not changed, or allowed to be changed. I prefer to have the speed
offered by 'repeat for each' than have it changed to a method that
requires
constant rechecking of the value of a 'variable'.
If Rev does this, I would hope they clearly label it to be different
repeat more slowly for each line LNN in myVar
...
end repeat
This is the only valid argument you have put forth. Speed is important,
but again, if it is not changeable, no one should be able to change at
all, and therefore it should be a constant, and not a variable.
I could live with your proposed nomenclature, and would put forth this
for the existing loop:
constant myConstant = myVar
repeat for each line with constant LNN in myConstant
...
end repeat
Basically, I like it the way it is, and it is part of the definition.
No, it is part of the rules, and rules are only applied when there are
uncertainty. Having the reason for rules removed is far more rewarding
then patching them with clunky workarounds.
Again for the general public, and not the experts
Björnke
_______________________________________________
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
