Charlie Reinl ha scritto:
Am Donnerstag, den 15.04.2010, 21:07 +0300 schrieb Jussi Lahtinen:
Yes, you can test it.
This should generate error:
If 1 = 2 And 1 / 0 Then Print test
This should not.:
If 1 = 2 And If 1 / 0 Then Print test
if itabstrip1.count and
(my teacher said never try to divide something by 0).
And I do not understand why/what/where that condition is/could be
good for ... 1/0 !?
Dividing by zero is guaranteed error. That is exactly reason why I used it to
test if Gambas has short-circuits or not.
This is for test purpose
Fabián Flores Vadell ha scritto:
2010/4/14 Doriano Blengino doriano.bleng...@fastwebnet.it:
First example. I store some bookmarks...
...
I could break out the loop using a logic variable, but this way I save a
variable. Or I could test the variable in the loop construct, like this:
Back to gambas - I don't know if the documentation says anything about
short-circuit and things like that. May be we can assume it as a
standard, that modern languages always do short-circuit, but the concept
remains.
Gambas doesn't have short-circuits, you have to write like this:
IF a=1
Jussi Lahtinen ha scritto:
Back to gambas - I don't know if the documentation says anything about
short-circuit and things like that. May be we can assume it as a
standard, that modern languages always do short-circuit, but the concept
remains.
Gambas doesn't have short-circuits, you
Am Donnerstag, den 15.04.2010, 19:28 +0200 schrieb Doriano Blengino:
Jussi Lahtinen ha scritto:
Back to gambas - I don't know if the documentation says anything about
short-circuit and things like that. May be we can assume it as a
standard, that modern languages always do short-circuit,
Yes, you can test it.
This should generate error:
If 1 = 2 And 1 / 0 Then Print test
This should not.:
If 1 = 2 And If 1 / 0 Then Print test
Jussi
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 20:56, Charlie Reinl karl.re...@fen-net.de wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 15.04.2010, 19:28 +0200 schrieb Doriano Blengino:
Charlie Reinl wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 15.04.2010, 19:28 +0200 schrieb Doriano Blengino:
Jussi Lahtinen ha scritto:
Back to gambas - I don't know if the documentation says anything about
short-circuit and things like that. May be we can assume it as a
standard, that modern
I don't agree the criteria for saving one variable or one expresion if
it is not justified.
Well, perhaps my daily work with little CPUs (some have 32 bytes of
ram!) drives me to professional bias, but why use a variable if can be
avoided? There is more than one reason for this (reported
Am Donnerstag, den 15.04.2010, 21:07 +0300 schrieb Jussi Lahtinen:
Yes, you can test it.
This should generate error:
If 1 = 2 And 1 / 0 Then Print test
This should not.:
If 1 = 2 And If 1 / 0 Then Print test
Jussi
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 20:56, Charlie Reinl karl.re...@fen-net.de
Fabián Flores Vadell ha scritto:
2010/4/13 Jussi Lahtinenjussi.lahti...@gmail.com:
Just in case:
REPEAT
b = TabStrip3.Count ' In fact, this does nothing usefull
INC a
UNTIL a TabStrip3.Count OR TabStrip3[a].Caption = IdCaption
This doesn't make same
The C language, in facts, does not even have CONSTs - it goes with
#define. So, it would be correct to forbid STATIC when declaring CONSTs.
Surely this is not correct. ANSI C uses const, and C++ also uses the
const keyword.
#define (a preprocessor directive) is a relic from old C, and const
Les Hardy ha scritto:
The C language, in facts, does not even have CONSTs - it goes with
#define. So, it would be correct to forbid STATIC when declaring CONSTs.
Surely this is not correct. ANSI C uses const, and C++ also uses the
const keyword.
#define (a preprocessor directive)
2010/4/14 Doriano Blengino doriano.bleng...@fastwebnet.it:
Back to the beginning: a CONST declaration is something that uses no
memory, so it can not have instances, and hence it can not be STATIC.
On the other hand, a CONST is always static, because the effective data
it describes reside in
If you feel hurt I am sorry for that, it was not my intention to hurt
you, and I have no wish to prove you wrong.
I do still stand by my statement.
Regards
Les Hardy
Doriano Blengino wrote:
Les Hardy ha scritto:
The C language, in facts, does not even have CONSTs - it goes
Fabián Flores Vadell ha scritto:
2010/4/14 Doriano Blenginodoriano.bleng...@fastwebnet.it:
Back to the beginning: a CONST declaration is something that uses no
memory, so it can not have instances, and hence it can not be STATIC.
Thanks Doriano. I understand that. My question was
Errata corrige:
Finally, your last lines of code do not work:
Yes, it works.
PRIVATE FUNCTION ScanTab(IdCaption AS String) AS Byte
DIM a AS Byte = 0
WHILE (aTabStrip1.Count - 1) AND (TabStrip1[a].Text
IdCaption)
INC a
WEND
2010/4/14 Doriano Blengino doriano.bleng...@fastwebnet.it:
And here we return on your idea about a good compiler - and it is mine
idea too.
I don't want judge if the Gambas compiler is good or not, I feel that
I don't have the knowledge or experience required for do that. But, I
shared with you
2010/4/14 Doriano Blengino doriano.bleng...@fastwebnet.it:
Errata corrige:
May be that I am missing something, but... how can you say that it works
if it omits to test the last item?
Time later, driving to home and still thinking about this routine, I
finally recalled what you wanted to
Hi everybody.
Well, all us knows that a constant is something that can't change.
Then, constants would be class members. So, when a class is
instantiated, constants should be shared by all instances.
The online help exclude the use of STATIC keyword in the declaration
of constants, so the STATIC
Hi everybody.
Well, all us knows that a constant is something that can't change.
Then, constants would be class members. So, when a class is
instantiated, constants should be shared by all instances.
The online help exclude the use of STATIC keyword in the declaration
of constants, so
No STATIC with CONST. Or maybe the compiler is more tolerant than that?
Maybe the compiler is a too much good guy :)
I think that the compiler shouldn't allow to do something like that:
PUBLIC FUNCTION ScanTab(IdCaption AS Integer) AS Integer
DIM a AS Integer = 0
DIM b AS Integer = 0
No STATIC with CONST. Or maybe the compiler is more tolerant than that?
Maybe the compiler is a too much good guy :)
I think that the compiler shouldn't allow to do something like that:
PUBLIC FUNCTION ScanTab(IdCaption AS Integer) AS Integer
DIM a AS Integer = 0
DIM b AS
Generally bad code...
What that supposed to do?
Either it will return TabStrip3.Count or zero.
This would do exactly same thing:
PUBLIC FUNCTION ScanTab(IdCaption AS Integer) AS Integer
FOR a = 0 TO TabStrip3.Count - 1
IF TabStrip3[a].Caption = IdCaption THEN
RETURN
I forgot Dim a as integer but you got the point.
Jussi
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 22:29, Jussi Lahtinen jussi.lahti...@gmail.com wrote:
Generally bad code...
What that supposed to do?
Either it will return TabStrip3.Count or zero.
This would do exactly same thing:
PUBLIC FUNCTION
Why shouldn't the compiler allow to modify a loop variable? It is sometimes
useful.
I'm refering to the loop FOR only. IMHO, WHILE and REPEAT are good
structures that allow at programmer take absolute control over
iterations, objective of FOR is iterate all items of a memory
structure. At
2010/4/13 Jussi Lahtinen jussi.lahti...@gmail.com:
I forgot Dim a as integer but you got the point.
Jussi
Yes Jussi. But my point isn't to do that the code work, it's show a
bad use of language resources.
--
Fabián Flores Vadell
www.speedbooksargentina.blogspot.com
First you referred to FOR loop only,
but with case of return command you are talking more generally about loops?
Or so I understand as you are speaking about it's influence to code structure.
Consider this, if you have VERY long iteration and but you are done
with first element of iteration.
Then
Aaa I think you meant it this way:
PUBLIC FUNCTION ScanTab(IdCaption AS Integer) AS Integer
Dim a as Integer
Dim b as Integer
REPEAT
IF TabStrip3[a].Caption = IdCaption THEN
b = TabStrip3.Count
BREAK
ENDIF
WHILE a TabStrip3.Count
RETURN b
END
Jussi
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010
Always forgetting something... INC a.
Jussi
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 01:59, Jussi Lahtinen jussi.lahti...@gmail.com wrote:
Aaa I think you meant it this way:
PUBLIC FUNCTION ScanTab(IdCaption AS Integer) AS Integer
Dim a as Integer
Dim b as Integer
REPEAT
IF TabStrip3[a].Caption =
2010/4/13 Jussi Lahtinen jussi.lahti...@gmail.com:
Aaa I think you meant it this way:
PUBLIC FUNCTION ScanTab(IdCaption AS Integer) AS Integer
Dim a as Integer
Dim b as Integer
REPEAT
IF TabStrip3[a].Caption = IdCaption THEN
b = TabStrip3.Count
BREAK
ENDIF
WHILE a
Just in case:
REPEAT
b = TabStrip3.Count ' In fact, this does nothing usefull
INC a
UNTIL a TabStrip3.Count OR TabStrip3[a].Caption = IdCaption
This doesn't make same functionality.
Because if ldCaption doesn't match to any of tabstrip captions,
function will still answer
2010/4/13 Jussi Lahtinen jussi.lahti...@gmail.com:
Just in case:
REPEAT
b = TabStrip3.Count ' In fact, this does nothing usefull
INC a
UNTIL a TabStrip3.Count OR TabStrip3[a].Caption = IdCaption
This doesn't make same functionality.
That is why I did not want to follow the
33 matches
Mail list logo
