It's the old tradeoff between functionality and ease of use. If you
think about it, there are a lot of things we might want to say in
Transcript (or whatevertheheck we are calling it these days). But we
can't because there has to be SOME rules in play to prevent us from
thinking we are saying one thing, and having Revolution think we are
saying something else.
Take for example 5 * 5 + 1. Did we mean (5 * 5) + 1? Or did we mean 5
* (5 + 1)? Well we know by math formula rules that the multiplication
is calculated first, so 26 is the correct answer. It would have been
clearer to just use the parenthesis and avoid any confusion, and many
programmers would. So does Rev. But my point is, someone decided that
was the rule, so we could never be mistaken about what the result
would be.
Perhaps you could have said 'answer item 1 of word 1 of "aaa,bbb"' in
Hypercard, and Hypercard would be perfectly happy to decide what you
meant. But someone decided beforehand what the rules would be. It
isn't that there ISN'T a rule, it's just that the rule was heretofore
unknown to us.
The looser things are in the language, the greater the possibility
that you will not get the results you expect. How often has THAT
happened to us? As flexible as Transcript is, (please no corrections
you know what I mean) it actually has a TON of rules that we subscribe
to every day without even thinking about it.
So the Rev people decided to make a new rule that said, "Chunk order
must be small to large" and it may have had to do with the internal
mechanics of the parser, but more likely it was to keep us from saying
things that had no meaning. I mean, how much sense would it have made
to say, 'the short name of stack "toobig" of card "toosmall"', or
'word 1 of char 1 of "This doesn't make any sense?"' That's my My 2ยข.
(pun intended).
Bob Sneidar
IT Manager
Logos Management
Calvary Chapel CM
On Mar 12, 2009, at 10:00 AM, dunb...@aol.com wrote:
Stephen;
Right. I was cavalier in thinking I can validate Rev issues by
emulating them
in HC. This is not fair to Rev.
I like parentheses.
But is this really a bug? Or just the way the parser works? I have
many
constructs in HC (get word line item 3 of the...) and I hope that
this probably
common and well regarded methodology is fully transparent to Rev,
too. If I have
to use parentheses, well, OK. So report or no? Anyone?
Craig Newman
In a message dated 3/12/09 12:07:47 PM,
stephenrevoluti...@barncard.com
writes:
Odd. Yet this works properly:
get word 1 of "aaa,bbb"
answer item 1 of it
put it
Congratulations. You found a bug. Please report it to the QC.
FYI - parentheses are your friend. the below construction works
and makes
it clearer anyway:
answer item 1 of (word 1 of "aaa,bbb")this really a bug? Or just the
way the
parser works?
**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in
just 2 easy steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219671244x1201345076/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668
072%26hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
