Re: [Gambas-user] Class header features (was: Declaring variables in class header without Public/Private is possible...)

2015-12-13 Thread Fabien Bodard
2015-12-13 19:33 GMT+01:00 Tobias Boege : > On Sat, 12 Dec 2015, Fabien Bodard wrote: >> gbs3 -e -p '{long[]}a=[1,1]:for {i}ii = 0 to >> 50:{l}i=a[0]+a[1]:a[0]=a[1]:a[1]=i:print i:next' >> >> hermetics >> > > I don't know what this has to do with the thread but I'm amazed that

Re: [Gambas-user] Class header features (was: Declaring variables in class header without Public/Private is possible...)

2015-12-13 Thread Tobias Boege
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015, Fabien Bodard wrote: > gbs3 -e -p '{long[]}a=[1,1]:for {i}ii = 0 to > 50:{l}i=a[0]+a[1]:a[0]=a[1]:a[1]=i:print i:next' > > hermetics > I don't know what this has to do with the thread but I'm amazed that this works. As I read it '{i}ii', e.g., is a crude way to declare an

Re: [Gambas-user] Class header features (was: Declaring variables in class header without Public/Private is possible...)

2015-12-12 Thread Fabien Bodard
2015-12-12 8:26 GMT+01:00 Tobias Boege : > On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, Moviga Technologies wrote: >> > >> > Things are PRIVATE by default, but it was not necessarily a good idea >> > to >> > allow that. >> > >> > Maybe I should remove that, but it's not backward-compatible, so many >>

Re: [Gambas-user] Class header features (was: Declaring variables in class header without Public/Private is possible...)

2015-12-12 Thread Fabien Bodard
gbs3 -e -p '{long[]}a=[1,1]:for {i}ii = 0 to 50:{l}i=a[0]+a[1]:a[0]=a[1]:a[1]=i:print i:next' hermetics 2015-12-12 9:00 GMT+01:00 Fabien Bodard : > 2015-12-12 8:26 GMT+01:00 Tobias Boege : >> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, Moviga Technologies wrote: >>> > >>> >

Re: [Gambas-user] Class header features (was: Declaring variables in class header without Public/Private is possible...)

2015-12-11 Thread Tobias Boege
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, Moviga Technologies wrote: > > > > Things are PRIVATE by default, but it was not necessarily a good idea > > to > > allow that. > > > > Maybe I should remove that, but it's not backward-compatible, so many > > programs will not compile anymore. > > > > Regards, > > Thank