Strongly needed this:

Psychophanta · Post by **Psychophanta** » Tue May 10, 2005 2:51 pm

Is this code well done?

Structure a 
  b.l 
  *c.l 
EndStructure 
var.a 
*var\c=2

Obviously it is not well done, because it is not the same var.a than *var.a, so why PB syntax doesn't allow var\*c=2 in order we can see in the code whether there is a pointer field or not in a structure?

Fred, maybe you can think about to add var\*c like syntax

Can you see what i mean?

Post by **Fred** » Tue May 10, 2005 3:18 pm

yes, this sounds logical. it will be done for the next major release.

blueznl · Post by **blueznl** » Thu Sep 29, 2005 1:33 pm

next... as in next century's?

any hopes of getting this one resolved in 4.00?

Psychophanta · Post by **Psychophanta** » Thu Sep 29, 2005 6:51 pm

blueznl wrote:any hopes of getting this one resolved in 4.00?

Yes, here is one hope: my hope

Justin · Post by **Justin** » Thu Sep 29, 2005 9:43 pm

wouldn't this break tons of existig code without introducing any feature?

Post by **Fred** » Thu Sep 29, 2005 10:51 pm

This is a inconsistency here which needs to be resolved IMHO.

MLK · Post by **MLK** » Thu Sep 29, 2005 10:59 pm

since last release *pointers are allowed in structures. but using them as var\*pointer fred just forgot to implement

Dr. Dri · Post by **Dr. Dri** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 1:22 pm

this code works, doesn't it ? why would you change PB syntax ?

Code: Select all

Structure test
  variable.l
  *pointer.Long
EndStructure

var.test
var\pointer = @var\variable
var\variable = 5
Debug var\pointer\l

Dri

okasvi · Post by **okasvi** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 2:18 pm

because var\*pointer is more logical and im sure Fred tries to keep syntax clear and logical

Psychophanta · Post by **Psychophanta** » Fri Sep 30, 2005 2:36 pm

okasvi wrote:because var\*pointer is more logical

That's the point.

And if i can do:

Code: Select all

*pointer.Long
pointer.Long

then why can not do:

Code: Select all

Structure test 
  *pointer.Long
  pointer.Long
EndStructure

Psychophanta · Post by **Psychophanta** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:01 pm

To Fred:
What about this?

Post by **Fred** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:07 pm

After much tough, it won't be changed for now.

Psychophanta · Post by **Psychophanta** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:50 am

remi_meier · Post by **remi_meier** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:04 pm

But when you don't change it for V4, there will be another release that will
break a lot of existing code which is surely not nice, too

vanleth · Post by **vanleth** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:08 pm

Agree with the inconsistency of the syntax in this structure/pointer subject. It has confused me before.

But I rather wait for PB4 Beta, and then take subject to discussion, since I also belive it will put down alot of ealier PB codes and I have no idea what PB4.0 brings.
Maybe others have similar suggestions to the current PB syntax consistency, so they can all be nailed down in one future release.