Syntax error message: *(p+1)\v

[IceSoft]

Missing a solution to change 'temporary' the pointer value:

I get a syntax error message with this one:

Code: Select all

*(p+1)\v

@Fred,
Please let it working (it is very important for using pointers)
Or give me the correct syntax

[Psychophanta]

Ther are many solutions. This one could help, i hope:

Code: Select all

*p.struc

*temp.struc=*p+SizeOf(struc)*1
*temp\v

[IceSoft]

Ther are many solutions. This one could help, i hope:

Code: Select all

*p.struc

*temp.struc=*p+SizeOf(struc)*1
*temp\v

Sorry, that is not a solution!
That's only a workaround.

A solution don't need a second variable!

[freak]

PB is not C...

[Fred]

It's not a bug, please post in the appropriate section.

[Psychophanta]

PB is not C...

Of course
PB is much more complex than C if the user wants, and much more easy than C if the user wants. That's the power.

[Psychophanta]

It's not a bug, please post in the appropriate section.

Fred , are you awake??? did you drink yesterday?
This is in request section!

[Fred]

Because i just moved it .

[Psychophanta]

Because i just moved it .

[IceSoft]

But this is a bottleneck.

@Fred,
I hope you add this very early.
Maybe it works if you change the syntax check only?

Code: Select all

(*p+1)\v

or

Code: Select all

*(p+1)\v

[freak]

Code: Select all

PeekB(*p+1) ; Or use whatever type you have there

[IceSoft]

Code: Select all

PeekB(*p+1) ; Or use whatever type you have there

Ok, one more workaround.
It is not so fast as a directly pointer access is.

I hope the PB-Team adds this feature on the first 'PB Servicepack 1'.

[Fred]

As fr34k says, it's not C, and we don't plan to introduce a weird syntax for this kind of stuff.

[IceSoft]

As fr34k says, it's not C, and we don't plan to introduce a weird syntax for this kind of stuff.

Come one @fred,
It is not weird. It is fast

Look this is not weird:

Code: Select all

*p+1

But you say this is weird (I using another sytax here)

Code: Select all

*p+1\v

Why?

[Fred]

Because '1' isn't a variable so you can't acces its field . If it's only a speed matter, we can still put PeekX() in the compiler it self to avoid an extra call..