Dependence on Programming Experts

[Robert Brenstein]

I should have removed the attribution since these get confusing in 
multiple quotes and my email client is configured to not 
attributions. Case in point: if you look carefully, there was a > in 
front of it, which means that yours was the text with >>, an earlier 
attribution (now one more > should be added for each since they are 
quoted again).


>Hi Robert,
>
>Just to note, the quoted text you attributed to me was not something
>which I said. I believe it was Troy.
>
>On 7/12/06, Robert Brenstein <rjb at robelko.com> wrote:
>>  >On Jul 11, 2006, at 10:02 PM, Chipp Walters wrote:
>>>
>>>>The other issue is regarding maintenance and readability for OTHER
>>>>programmers. If there's this arcane 'other' way of doing something, it
>>>>may make it more difficult.
>>>
>>>But this is a case where the syntax exist with Rev NOW, but not
>>>within this context.
>>>
>>>It is REALLY at odds with itself when...
>>>
>>>local x = 5 // is legal, and perfectly normal
>>>x = 5 // is not, and is an unthinkable construction
>>>
>>
>>Not really at odds. Within the local statement, the equal holds
>>always since only string or number can be on the right side. In the
>>latter case, it would be an operator which can have any expression on
>>the right.
>>
>>In terms of implementation, the former is fairly trivial but the
>>latter would require quite a big change in the parser logic, me
>>thinks.
>>
>>Robert