Inconsistent comma requirements

[Monte Goulding]

> On 26 Jun 2017, at 4:05 pm, hh via use-livecode <use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> 
>> I have seen it before in user scripts but never used it myself.
>> It’s one of those things you discover (like when {} could be used
>> interchangeably with []) that you quickly realise you should never
>> rely on so you forget pretty quickly ;-)
> 
> You are member of the LC-team and you know that several 'official'
> LC lessons use this "parameter-feature".
> 
> So, what should we conclude from such a writing?

You could reasonably conclude that I haven’t read every bit of content published by the company (the vast majority of which was produced prior to my employment) and that I might not know that some examples of handler definitions without comma delimited parameters. One of the things I did in the first few months of my employment was write some tests which ensured that our examples in the docs actually compiled. You might be surprised to learn that many didn’t. Mostly minor copy paste errors but one relevant example had handler definitions with the parameters declared within parentheses. That’s just the kind of thing that happens when the author spends most of their day implementing and maintaining a language written in a different language. I for one often forget that `break` can’t be used within repeat loops these days but I never forgot that when I was spending almost all day in LiveCode  ;-)

Which lessons are you referring to though? I’ll bug report them as we should be being consistent whether this parser anomaly is ever removed or not.

Cheers

Monte