Dependence on Programming Experts
rcozens at pon.net
Thu Jul 13 14:50:40 EDT 2006
>I don't see what would break existing syntax.
The example I gave, which demonstrates techniques in many of my
>The proposal I remember is to allow
> <container> = <expression>
>anywhere a statement is allowed - i.e. as a statement on a
>(logical) line, or following an IF <expr> THEN ...
>Your example was
> set the disabled of button "Previous Record" to (recordNumber = 1)
> SET <container> TO <expression>
No: SET <property> TO <expression>
>which wouldn't look much like the new (optional) syntax to any
>parser I can think of.
It isn't new: it's from SDB logic that's been working for me since RR v2
>The fact that "recordnumber = 1" *could* be an expression, or
>*could* be a statement shouldn't be a problem - the context will
>*always* tell you which it is; currently Transcript doesn't allow
>expressions to be written where a statement is required,
Trans.... er, Revolution evaluates "(recordNumber = 1) as a bolean
expression evaluated as true or false.
CCW, Serendipity Software Company
"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."
from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
More information about the Use-livecode