I can't imagine why we'd want that added to the language. We don't
need yet another way to place a value in a variable. What would be
the advantage?
(I always found the whole ==, +=, :=, == syntax mess pretty ugly. I
love the elegance of put 32 into x.)
On Jun 21, 2005, at 6:47 PM, Eric Engle wrote:
Is there any chance that transcript will incorporate the := operator?
This is the pascal operator of affectation (put value into variable
-- variable
:= value)
This operator is available in lingo.
____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Shafer, Revolution Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
From RunRev Store
_______________________________________________
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
