For Each Anomaly

[Björnke von Gierke]

On 20 Jun 2007, at 19:47, Jim Ault wrote:

> ...
>> constant myConstant = myVar
>> repeat for each line with constant LNN in myConstant
>> ...
>> end repeat
>
> To be sure, Björnke, computer languages can be confusing.  Try 
> Applescript
> and its highly-unintuitive world of variables!!  What a headache.

You ask any non programmer who would like his own custom program, why 
they do not use programming languages. Then think about how to change 
rev to make it easier for these people.

> So let's look at the example you have shown above.
> In this case, LNN cannot be a constant, since its value needs to update
> every iteration.

Why not? Using a constant makes more sense in a case where the user 
can't change the value. I don't care if the computer sets the content 
of a variable or a constant. But i care when a value is labelled as 
changeable to the user, but is actually not.


> Maybe there should be some area of the docs that addresses this issue 
> of
> power user tools vs general public tools.  I know I had to spend
> considerable time learning the better code techniques in Rev over the 
> last 3
> years.

This was the sentiment that made me enter the discussion in the first 
place, so I repeat from my first post on the topic:
"Adding description for every unexpected behaviour is like trying to 
prevent a breach in a dyke by explaining to the water that it should go 
somewhere else. If the language would behave as expected, there would 
be less airquote & bug & airquote reports immediately (and less 
breaking dykes)."

Down with the experts, long live the inexperienced
Björnke