On 09/14/2015 02:27 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
Wasn't COME FROM originally an INTERCAL feature?
Yep. Along with PLEASE.
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscr
On 12/09/2015 20:47, Jerry Jensen wrote:
And then there’s the well-known Forth construct: ComeFrom . . .
Wasn't COME FROM originally an INTERCAL feature?
Peter
--
Dr Peter Brett
LiveCode Open Source Team
LiveCode on reddit: https://reddit.com/r/liveco
Well, what about "exit to button" or "exit all repeats" or "exit all
ifs" or something like that?
It's a little kluge, but at least it resembles elegant:
put false into allDone
repeat whatever1
repeat whatever2
repeat whatever3
put somethinghappened into allDone
if all
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:
> InterCal, I believe, from the April Fools 1984 issue of the CACM.
> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ComeFrom
>
Yes, but it was really there, and really used, in Cobol
--
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462
_
On 09/12/2015 07:12 AM, Dr. Hawkins wrote:
The missing control structure that is killing me in livecode is something
like
repeat for some reason or another :georgeCheck
...
exit repeat georgeCheck
which would allow leaving an outer repeat from within an inner repeat.
If you work at it hard
On 09/12/2015 02:33 PM, Dr. Hawkins wrote:
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Jerry Jensen wrote:
And then there’s the well-known Forth construct: ComeFrom . . .
That's Cobol, not Forth.
Forth's own stack behavior can be psychotic, too.
InterCal, I believe, from the April Fools 1984 issu
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Jerry Jensen wrote:
> And then there’s the well-known Forth construct: ComeFrom . . .
>
That's Cobol, not Forth.
Forth's own stack behavior can be psychotic, too.
--
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462
___
u
And then there’s the well-known Forth construct: ComeFrom . . .
.Jerry
> On Sep 12, 2015, at 2:07 AM, Graham Samuel wrote:
>
> Richmond, I was actually programming in the 1960s in languages that had ‘go
> to’ but very few or maybe no other control structures. It was a mess and I
> made a great
On 09/12/2015 12:50 PM, Richmond wrote:
On 09/12/2015 12:07 PM, Graham Samuel wrote:
Richmond, I was actually programming in the 1960s in languages that had ‘go to’
but very few or maybe no other control structures. It was a mess and I made a
great many unnecessary mistakes, admittedly not hel
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Graham Samuel wrote:
> The classic exposition of the ‘go to’ problem AFAICR is Edgar Dijkstra’s
> 1968 paper "Go To Statement Considered Harmful”. Google will take you there
> if you’re interested. Not everyone agreed with Dijkstra even at the time,
> but he was c
On 09/12/2015 12:07 PM, Graham Samuel wrote:
Richmond, I was actually programming in the 1960s in languages that had ‘go to’
but very few or maybe no other control structures. It was a mess and I made a
great many unnecessary mistakes, admittedly not helped by my lack of training
and experienc
Richmond, I was actually programming in the 1960s in languages that had ‘go to’
but very few or maybe no other control structures. It was a mess and I made a
great many unnecessary mistakes, admittedly not helped by my lack of training
and experience (none was available where I was working!), th
Last night I was reading "C++ How to Program" from 1998, for no better
reason than that I had left my novel
at work . . .
Oddly enough bits of it proved thought-provoking:
"During the 1960s, it became clear that the indiscriminate use of
transfers of control was the root of much
difficulty ex
13 matches
Mail list logo
