Add "Static$ variable" or remove "$" for all keywords

[Marc56us]

After using for years .s, I now prefer to use $ for text variables.
So, if I pick up a code later, there is no need to go back to the variable declaration to know if it is a numeric or text variable and fewer possible errors.
The creators of the basic had good ideas from the beginning.

[Little John]

After using for years .s, I now prefer to use $ for text variables.
So, if I pick up a code later, there is no need to go back to the variable declaration to know if it is a numeric or text variable and fewer possible errors.

That's why I also prefer $ for string variables.

However, this thread is about .s and $ as suffixes for some keywords, not for variables. I had mixed that up, too.

@Sicro:
Thank you for editing the title and the first post!

[olafmagne]

Hello,

I totally agree,that the $-sign is useless for declaration-keywords,
but,on the other hand, as a trailing-sign for functions/procedures,also for userwritten , it make sence.
every now and then,i find myself writing it and then wondering,what syntax-error i have made.
IMHO,get rid of it on declarations and add it to the functions as whe know from times gone by (C64 on my mind)

Olaf

[skywalk]

This is what makes PureBasic so helpful when browsing code.
I know immediately I am staring at a string variable x$ or a pointer *ptr.
C drops the pointer(*) after defining and that is a big reason for so many memory bugs.
PureBasic syntax also allows you to retain the .type tail, but I find that too much noise.
For i.i = 0 to nPts.i
x.d + i.i
Next i.i

[Kurzer]

After using for years .s, I now prefer to use $ for text variables.
So, if I pick up a code later, there is no need to go back to the variable declaration to know if it is a numeric or text variable and fewer possible errors.
The creators of the basic had good ideas from the beginning.

i dropped using the $ in variables, because i am using a mix of hungary notation and camelcase notation for my variables to determine the variable type on the first sight.

eg.
iNumOfCars ; integer
sNameOfDriver ; string
fSpeedOfCar ; float
dAmountOfGas ; double
stCars ; structured type
and so on...

Sent via mobile phone

[olafmagne]

This is what makes PureBasic so helpful when browsing code.
I know immediately I am staring at a string variable x$ or a pointer *ptr.
C drops the pointer(*) after defining and that is a big reason for so many memory bugs.
PureBasic syntax also allows you to retain the .type tail, but I find that too much noise.
For i.i = 0 to nPts.i
x.d + i.i
Next i.i

I totally agree

Olaf

[Tenaja]

eg.
iNumOfCars ; integer
sNameOfDriver ; string
fSpeedOfCar ; float
dAmountOfGas ; double
stCars ; structured type
and so on...

Sent via mobile phone

That's what I do... Been doing it since I read that how to program windows book in the early x0's...

[Sicro]

eg.
iNumOfCars ; integer
sNameOfDriver ; string
fSpeedOfCar ; float
dAmountOfGas ; double
stCars ; structured type
and so on...

Appending the variable type as prefix to the variable name has the disadvantage that the variable type must first be written for the auto-completion function. Usually, however, you only remember the approximate variable name and not also the variable type of the variable.

As long as PureBasic does not use a fuzzy search for auto-completion, the variable type is better appended to the variable name as a suffix in my opinion.