David Burgun wrote:
I'm with you: Transcript's existing abbreviations are about as sparse
as I'd like to go.
Yes, I don't really care how they are stored in the script as long as
the editor could expand them to the way the user wants to see them. I
the "C/C++" language there are formatters t
David Burgun wrote:
How about if we eliminate both and enforce just a single-character
typing convention for objects and numeric values only for object
identification? That way "field 3 of card 7" would come out to "f3c7"
for a minimum of typing. The engine's parser would, of course,
separate th
David Burgun wrote:
How about if we eliminate both and enforce just a single-character
typing convention for objects and numeric values only for object
identification? That way "field 3 of card 7" would come out to "f3c7"
for a minimum of typing. The engine's parser would, of course,
separate th
This sounds and looks just horrible!
I vote to scrap the abbreviations and use the long forms! Should be
easy enough to write a script to translate the short forms to the
long forms, in fact the editor could change them dymanically as you
type, thus getting the best of both worlds!
Just my 1
Mark Waddingham wrote:
But I fear for Mr. Waddingham when the citizens storm the Edinburgh
offices with torches and pitchforks after discovering that the code
style they've been using for years is no longer supported. ;)
Odd... I don't recall saying that the short form of object tokens would
b
> But I fear for Mr. Waddingham when the citizens storm the Edinburgh
> offices with torches and pitchforks after discovering that the code
> style they've been using for years is no longer supported. ;)
Odd... I don't recall saying that the short form of object tokens would
be eliminated, I was
J. Landman Gay wrote:
Mark Wieder wrote:
How about the opposite? Stop using the *long* form... it means less
typing and you get the same effect (see your subject line)...
A Modest Proposal:
How about if we eliminate both and enforce just a single-character
typing convention for objects and n
TECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen
Barncard
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 2:06 PM
To: How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: set rect of fld f1 of cd c1 of wd w1 to rect of fld f2 of
cd c2 of wd w2
Don't like that. Looks like APL to me. A major point of Transcript is
to be easily HUMAN readable. Co
Lynch, Jonathan wrote:
I want more ways of addressing an object. I could really use an altname
property.
Put 8 into field altname "myField"
This way I can address a field by either its name or its altname. I have
a definite use for that.
I'll bite: How?
--
Richard Gaskin
Managing Editor, r
Stephen Barncard wrote:
Thanks, Mark for those insights on the engine - the more we know how it
works, the more we can get out of rev!
sqb
> > repeat while(x+1) < 10
> put word(x+1) of "This is a test"
>
>Although this is consistent, it still *looks* wrong to me... it
looks like
>
Recently, Lynch, Jonathan wrote:
> I want more ways of addressing an object. I could really use an altname
> property.
>
> Put 8 into field altname "myField"
>
> This way I can address a field by either its name or its altname. I have
> a definite use for that.
Currently you can address a fiel
Don't like that. Looks like APL to me. A major point of Transcript is
to be easily HUMAN readable. Consider a rotten apple thrown.
A Modest Proposal:
How about if we eliminate both and enforce just a single-character
typing convention for objects and numeric values only for object
identificat
Hi Mark,
f3 c7?
Sunk!
;-)
Le 26 août 05 à 18:36, Mark Wieder a écrit :
A Modest Proposal:
How about if we eliminate both and enforce just a single-character
typing convention for objects and numeric values only for object
identification? That way "field 3 of card 7" would come out to "f3c7"
Thanks, Mark for those insights on the engine - the more we know how
it works, the more we can get out of rev!
sqb
> > repeat while(x+1) < 10
> put word(x+1) of "This is a test"
>
>Although this is consistent, it still *looks* wrong to me... it looks like
>"while" and "word" are func
On 8/26/05 11:36 AM, "Mark Wieder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ken-
>
> Friday, August 26, 2005, 7:13:32 AM, you wrote:
>
>> How about the opposite? Stop using the *long* form... it means less typing
>> and you get the same effect (see your subject line)... (he said, dodging
>> fruit) ;-)
>
Mark Wieder wrote:
Ken-
Friday, August 26, 2005, 7:13:32 AM, you wrote:
How about the opposite? Stop using the *long* form... it means less typing
and you get the same effect (see your subject line)... (he said, dodging
fruit) ;-)
...in that case *all* my stacks would stop working...
Ken-
Friday, August 26, 2005, 7:13:32 AM, you wrote:
> How about the opposite? Stop using the *long* form... it means less typing
> and you get the same effect (see your subject line)... (he said, dodging
> fruit) ;-)
...in that case *all* my stacks would stop working...
A Modest Proposal:
On 8/26/05 6:02 AM, "Mark Waddingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, the engine is a little too forgiving in places but there are
> actually two separate issues here - one related to tokenisation and one
> related to parsing.
Thanks for the clarification, Mark... it really helps me understa
> > repeat while(x+1) < 10
> > put word(x+1) of "This is a test"
> >
> >Although this is consistent, it still *looks* wrong to me... it looks like
> >"while" and "word" are functions in the example above. Is it just me, or is
> >this a bug that has been in the engine for a long time?
>
> Well,
19 matches
Mail list logo