On Jan 27, 2006, at 5:17 PM, Kevin Toppenberg wrote:On 1/27/06, Greg Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- Kevin Toppenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... It is call by name because the *name* of the _expression_ X+1 is passed to the command, not its value. If X+1 were evaluated before X was se
On 1/27/06, Greg Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Kevin Toppenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
...
It is call by name because the *name* of
> the expression X+1 is passed to the command, not its value. If X+1 were
> evaluated before X was set to 7 (say, during compilation), the result
>
--- Kevin Toppenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking of confusion, I'm not sure if I agree with the names you
> specify, so perhaps I am confused. Here are the three ways that I
> can
> see to call a function:
>
> #1 do MyFunct(MyVar) <-- pass by value
> #2 do MyFunct(.MyVar) <-- pass b
See below
On 1/27/06, Jim Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevin,
> What are you trying to do with these techniques? They are not exactly
> equivalent.
I can't recall now what was in my mind when I wrote the different
procedures, but the fact remains that I have some written using both
methods.
On 1/27/06, Chris Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gary;
>
> Yes, what is preceived as ugly is often powerful. This is the construction
> of the called routine with the name of the argument(s) dynamically
> generated. I say argument(s) because VarName could be of a form,
> "P1,P2,.P3" and
Would it be fair, then, to say that confusion is ONE beginning of
enlightenment rather than THE beginning. Unless one considers
curiosity about discordant/unexpected findings to be "confusion."
Kevin
On 1/27/06, Chris Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See, your more enlightened already...
--- "Bhaskar, KS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And here I was, thinking that enlightenment is the source of
> confusion!
> Every time I learn something new, I realize that there are (at least)
> three more things I don't know. Worse yet, those are three things
> that
> I didn't know that I didn't
And here I was, thinking that enlightenment is the source of confusion!
Every time I learn something new, I realize that there are (at least)
three more things I don't know. Worse yet, those are three things that
I didn't know that I didn't know.
Just think about it, Chris - we're more confused a
See, your more enlightened already ;^)
It just means that confusion is the first step in breaking a series of
assumptions which hold back the possibility of enlightenment.
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 12:45 PM
Subject: R
>--- Chris Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Confusion is the beginning of enlightenment.
>
>Good one!
Curiously confusing. Seemingly confused.
Something essential was omitted from the quote - "Awareness"
Very much like the distortion in omitting "Love of" from "Money is the root of
all
Kevin,
What are you trying to do with these techniques? They are not exactly
equivalent.
The pass-by-reference technique is generally used to avoid the use of
indirection and to
make the code cleaner and more efficient. It cannot be used where the target
array is a
global.
The indirection tech
Pretty sure the number of refills
remaining is not stored.
Also pretty sure the PSOORRL APIs return
the remaining refills.
You might also look at PSO*7*204, PSOMHV1,
PSOPRA might interest. The MHV HL7 interface for Rx refill or its extractors
might also be of interest, MHV*.
--- Chris Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Confusion is the beginning of enlightenment.
Good one!
===
Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as
being self-evident."
--Ar
Gary;
Yes, what is preceived as ugly is often powerful. This is the construction
of the called routine with the name of the argument(s) dynamically
generated. I say argument(s) because VarName could be of a form,
"P1,P2,.P3" and is the routine was constructed properly, then the argument
list wou
Is there anyplace in the Rx file that the number of
refills remaining on a script is kept? Or is the only the way to get this
number is to calculate based on the number of refills field and the list of
refills?
Jim Gray
Cool. Very clever.
Kevin
On 1/27/06, Gary Monger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's also D @("MyFunct2(."_VarName_")")
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregory
> Woodhouse
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 9:37 PM
> To: hardhat
--- Greg Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't mean to usurp the thread here, but this is of particular
> interest to me because the techcnique I'm considering for
> implementing
> indirection in the interpreter/compiler I'm working on is to treat it
> as a call to a thunk...
BTW, hee'
I don't mean to usurp the thread here, but this is of particular
interest to me because the techcnique I'm considering for implementing
indirection in the interpreter/compiler I'm working on is to treat it
as a call to a thunk, and XECUTE would be transformed to indirection by
systematically expand
--- Gary Monger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's also D @("MyFunct2(."_VarName_")")
>
That will work, too. :-)
Actually, I was thinking about that on the train this morning, and
though they look equivalent, I actually think this is preferable from
an implementation point of view. In princip
There's also D @("MyFunct2(."_VarName_")")
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregory
Woodhouse
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 9:37 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Parameter passing by reference
On Jan 26, 2006, at 1:41 PM, Gary Monger wrote:
What can you load from CSV files now?
In principle, you can load anything but WP fields from CSV files. In
practice, applications can (and probably will) restrict your ability
to load data directly to their files, so you'll probably need to
21 matches
Mail list logo
