The problem with this solution is that varA and varB are not evaluated.
In order to use your syntax it would need to be:
send "calc" && varA & comma & varB to btn "source"
or
send merge( "calc [[varA]], [[varB]]" ) to btn "source"
I find both inelegant readability wise. I think there is a great burden
on language developers to create a language that goes as far as it can
toward self-documentation. I feel that the message passing mechanisms
are a sore spot in transcript. I do not understand why Rev would be
unable to parse my proposed syntax.
Thank you for your suggestion, however!
Andre Garzia wrote:
Err...
can't you make it a Handler use send and check for the result???
send "calc VarA, VarB" to btn "source"
put the result into localResult
of course calc is not a function but a handler with a return statement.
Cheers
andre
On Mar 17, 2006, at 2:55 AM, Jim Ault wrote:
I'm not sure that this is the right direction for any language to be
headed. Please explain why we can't have the following syntax:
put calc(varA,varB) of btn "source" into localResult
_______________________________________________
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
