At 11:28 AM +0200 on 6/20/99, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
> the computer would understand it, but it would confuse scripters. Also it
>requires excess use of "(" and ")" to get around the language default,
The idea of the "(" and ")" was to make it look like a parenthetical
comment; it has nothing to do with parsing necessity.
One could parse:
put item 3 delimited by 3 of "3:3:3:3" easily, but
put item 3 (delimited by 3) of... is easier to read.
Also, I think it'd work either immiedately after the word "item" or after
the number. Immediately after the "item" is better because sometimes it
does avoid some problems with figuring out which refers to which.
>>It's different in "repeat" because:
>> repeat with put 1 into x to put 50 into x
>>is a nightmare. And it does not make sence, either.
>
>Ha ha.
>
> repeat from 1 to 5 with x
>
> repeat from 1 to 50 in x
What's wrong with "repeat with x counting [by ones] from 1 to 50, inclusive"?
Or even "repeat with x from 1 to 50"
Repeat commands are long enough as is.
> In the scripter's eye. It is error-prone because this statement is too
>easily mis-read.
I want the third item, delimited by a period or a comma, of "No, Uli, it is
not. So there!"
(If you didn't have any trouble with that, I don't see what the difference
is once you put it into a HT window instead of a email window,)
>If it doesn't make sense, the scripter might just fail to
>understand it. Of course, we could say RTFM, but we'd avoid even having to
>say it if we chose syntax that is English-like.
We use "or" in Eglish all the time... I don't see how it's not Eglish-like.
>
>>Intermangles boolean expressions in chunks? Do you mean:
>> put item 3 (delim=(a=b)) of...
>>Are you using true/false as delimiters
>
> I'm not. But with your syntax, a newbie might think someone is, and he'll
>wonder why. It's never a good idea to use the same identifier in too many
>different ways. it's just not intuitive enough to have:
>
> put item 2 delim=4 of ...
>
>It reads like a command-line script, where you write "command -o option -x
>option2".
Fine! Forget the '='! Use 'is'! But I bet we'll get users wondering why
they can't use '='.
>but if we go out and make use of something like delim=4 we might as well
>contact Wagner Publishing and ask them about licensing HyperLogo.
I think you're just focusing on the abbreviated syntax.
But why don't we contact them about:
on -- what does a handler have to do with a light switch?
end -- guess we just killed that light switch
pass -- not used in English like in HT
return -- same.
repeat [forever] -- forever can be left out
repeat [for] <number> [times -- both for and times can be left out; putting
-- both for in makes no sence
next repeat -- should find the next repeat in the script and
-- start at the top of that repeat. That's what it
-- says.
global -- has nothing to do with the globe
answer -- "answer <question>". Need I say more?
ask -- what answer should of been called
close printing -- like a file?
convert -- confusing
create stack -- why create? What happened to "new" as in the menu?
delete -- delete object, anyone
disable -- that's just cruel
DoMenu -- too confusing (see do)
enable -- huh? disabilities are normally permanent
export paint -- huh? still using MacPaint anyone?
find -- did you mean chars, word, whole, or string? Or
-- normal?
functionKey -- confusing with function
get -- Ok... we did not already have that... and why's it
-- synonomous with a form of put?
go -- confusing; not used in English this way
import paint -- see above
lock screen -- huh? I don't see a lock on my monitor!
mark -- where's the marker? (worse: mark cards by finding)
open -- why can't I open a stack?
open printing -- looks like there's a program/file called "printing"
open report printing -- we've just opened report with printing
palette -- can't get the Tools one!
picture -- scarry options; unclear syntax
play -- certainly not English: Play "sound" 100 "abcdefg"
-- (anyone remember what that does?)
pop card -- huh?
print card -- is "card" an expression? Can I put card into x?
push -- push the card to where? And "card" must be a
-- descriptor for this card!
read -- why "it"?
reset menubar -- I didn't hit the reset key!
reset paint -- ditto
reset printing -- ditto
save -- huh... requires a new, different name? Why not
-- save as?
show cards -- huh? You can't hide cards
sort -- scarry
start using/stop using -- usury!
unlock screen -- where's that lock? (see above)
visual effect -- huh?! It did nothing! Have to use with "go" command;
-- why is this not part of the go command?
write -- if read uses it, why not write?
abs, atan, CharToNum, -- we use these a lot in English, no?
clickChunk, clickLine -- this really is very English-sounding
clickLoc, clickText -- same
cos, FoundChunk -- same
FoundLine, FoundField -- same
FoundText, NumToChar -- same
param -- "the param of 1"
paramcount -- why not "the number of params"
random -- "the random of 5". How about "a random less than 5"?
-- you can't have "the random" because it's RANDOM!
result -- how is that different than the answer...?
round -- the round of 4.5 (at least it does give 4)
the seconds -- jan 1, 1904?
exp, exp1, exp2 -- not English & confusing!
ln, ln1 -- not English & confusing!
log2 -- where the f**k is log?
Annuity, average, -- syntax is wonderfull... a bunch of commas
compound, max, min -- oooh! what great syntax!
mouse -- why not mouse button
sin -- has quite a different meaning in English.
sqrt -- we have vowels in words in English.
tan -- wow! Does HC get a sun tan?
the target -- indicates origonal recipient? Is your aim that bad?
the ticks -- Do they carry lime disease?
the time -- "abbr" time?
trunc -- sounds like a trunk.
Happy?! You can complain about most of HyperTalk. It's not English, never
has been, and never will be.
>
>>Or did you mean:
>> put (a=b) into item 3 (delim=";") of...
>>But "a=b" is already confusing enough!
>>Chunks & bools are not intermixed that often.
>
> Imagine I'm keeping track of several booleans in a variable, where one
>line corresponds to one card in my stack (my stack's prefs). Presto! Here
>I'm using chunk expressions with booleans.
But the line is still perfectly understandable.
