Note: it's page 41 in the menu bar, but page 27 in the document. I'm only dangerous in Livecode, but the code in Listing 5.3 looks like actual code to me, not pseudocode. By definition, if it's pseudocode then isn't it too vague to be used as actual code? And what good is code, pseudo or not, if it references mysterious functions?
Pseudocode should be easier to write and read since a human can fill in the missing pieces for themselves. If you had a set of rules for writing pseudocode, such that it could be parsed into a high-level language like Livecode, then wouldn't you simply have an even higher-level language? On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Richmond <richmondmathew...@gmail.com> wrote: > IFF pseudocode has rules as to how it should be written it should not > be that difficult to write a series of routines inwith LiveCode to import > pseudocode written (say) in an RTF document and transpose it into > LiveCode script. > > ????? > > Inspired by reading this: > https://project.dke.maastrichtuniversity.nl/games/files/msc/MasterThesisCarcassonne.pdf > > page 41 > > Richmond. > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
