>But it don't have to be items, especially if they are regular
>expressions. You may call it "term" or "block" or "...line" or
>"...part" and they still are readable.
Ruediger,
right. It was just a suggestion to get around such readability issues,
though I think people will automatically give chunk types speaking names.
>How about script scope?
Could work. I want to hear about this from the ones who actually have to
implement this first. When Scott and Anthony et al are this quiet it
usually means it won't get in there ...
>That would make it easier for the parser, but it would not add so
>much to readability. I can live with or without equally well. Make it
>optional!?!
You're right. It would also be more logical, and as "a string" is so
indefinite I don't think people will try:
put "this" & a string & "that" into myVariable
So, if it's possible to do this on the programmers' side we could do it.
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
