Dependence on Programming Experts

Rob Cozens rcozens at
Thu Jul 13 14:50:40 EDT 2006

Hi Aex,

>I don't see what would break existing syntax.

The example I gave, which demonstrates techniques in many of my 
existing stacks.

>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.

Rob Cozens
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 mailing list