>put (item (item (item 5 delimited by "." of c) to (item 6 delimited by return
>of d) delimited by space to 2 of a) delimited by comma of b) into
>what_the_hell_is_that
(I inserted parentheses in the above for readability)
Anthony,
I agree this is awful, but something like this is already possible:
put item item item 5 of c to item 6 of d to 2 of a of b into
what_the_hell_is_that
so I don't think we'd make much worse.
>That, btw, is perfectly legal under the syntax stated above. And it is
>absolute <i>Unsinn</i>!!
Your syntax wouldn't clean that up anyway:
put (item (item (item 5 delim="." of c) to (item 6 delim=return of d)
delim=space to 2 of a) delim=comma of b) into what_the_hell_is_that
Is just as bad.
And
put item(comma) 4 into ...
or
put ,-item 4 into ...
are even worse, because they introduce real ambiguities. "delimited by" or
"with delimiter" are already shorter than "set itemdelimiter to". But of
course they allow grouping several simple statements into one shorter,
complex statement. It's the scripter's choice not to nest stuff with "item
item item". But "delimiter is" doesn't even resolve to a real English
sentence, so why should we prefer that over the others if it even
introduces more ambiguities that the others?
The only way we can truly work around this problem is if we allow
scripter-defined chunk types. But that would make it much more verbose
again:
define delimiter schomp as "\"
define delimiter schammel as "|"
put schomp 5 of schammel 7 of "this\is\different|a\b\c|foo\bar|yeah\?"
as opposed to:
put item 5 delimited by "\" of item 7 delimited by "|" of
"this\is\different|a\b\c|foo\bar|yeah\?"
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
--- HELP SAVE HYPERCARD: ---
Details at: http://www.hyperactivesw.com/SaveHC.html
Sign: http://www.giguere.uqam.ca/petition/hcpetition.html
