>> Horrible! This will collide with expressions
>No it won't. You can put an expression there, ever (without this exension).
>It's between the chunktype and the word "of."
Anthony,
the computer would understand it, but it would confuse scripters. Also it
requires excess use of "(" and ")" to get around the language default,
while a more carefully sought syntax would avoid this. If a programming
language requires many brackets to work around built-in language
priorities, the priorities are wrong or badly chosen.
>It's different in "repeat" because:
> repeat with put 1 into x to put 50 into x
>is a nightmare. And it does not make sence, either.
Ha ha.
repeat from 1 to 5 with x
repeat from 1 to 50 in x
would be valuable alternate syntaxes. No need for "put" or "=".
>I don't see how asking for something delimited by a or b can be construed
>to look like a boolean expression.
In the scripter's eye. It is error-prone because this statement is too
easily mis-read. If it doesn't make sense, the scripter might just fail to
understand it. Of course, we could say RTFM, but we'd avoid even having to
say it if we chose syntax that is English-like.
>Intermangles boolean expressions in chunks? Do you mean:
> put item 3 (delim=(a=b)) of...
>Are you using true/false as delimiters
I'm not. But with your syntax, a newbie might think someone is, and he'll
wonder why. It's never a good idea to use the same identifier in too many
different ways. it's just not intuitive enough to have:
put item 2 delim=4 of ...
It reads like a command-line script, where you write "command -o option -x
option2".
put item 4 of str into foo
Is in HyperTalk because it's English. They can also read:
put item 4 delimited by "/" into foo
but if we go out and make use of something like delim=4 we might as well
contact Wagner Publishing and ask them about licensing HyperLogo.
>Or did you mean:
> put (a=b) into item 3 (delim=";") of...
>But "a=b" is already confusing enough!
>Chunks & bools are not intermixed that often.
Imagine I'm keeping track of several booleans in a variable, where one
line corresponds to one card in my stack (my stack's prefs). Presto! Here
I'm using chunk expressions with booleans.
>It was thrown in to point out that the syntax is extendable.
OK. But personally I'd rather see no regexps in this way in chunk
management. We should have separate commands like:
repeat for each expression l where char 1 to 4 = "Uli:" and char 6 to 7 is
"sleep" in str
do something with l
end repeat
The above is just an example of how one *could* implement regexps. I'll
provide a real proposal for some thought-about syntax in a later message.
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
--- HELP SAVE HYPERCARD: ---
Details at: http://www.hyperactivesw.com/SaveHC.html
Sign: http://www.giguere.uqam.ca/petition/hcpetition.html
