Page 1 of 2
Strongly needed this:
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 2:51 pm
by Psychophanta
Is this code well done?
Code: Select all
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?
Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 3:18 pm
by Fred
yes, this sounds logical. it will be done for the next major release.
Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 1:33 pm
by blueznl
next... as in next century's?
any hopes of getting this one resolved in 4.00?
Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 6:51 pm
by Psychophanta
blueznl wrote:any hopes of getting this one resolved in 4.00?
Yes, here is one hope: my hope
Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 9:43 pm
by Justin
wouldn't this break tons of existig code without introducing any feature?
Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 10:51 pm
by Fred
This is a inconsistency here which needs to be resolved IMHO.
Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 10:59 pm
by MLK
since last release *pointers are allowed in structures. but using them as var\*pointer fred just forgot to implement
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 1:22 pm
by Dr. Dri
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
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 2:18 pm
by okasvi
because var\*pointer is more logical and im sure Fred tries to keep syntax clear and logical
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 2:36 pm
by Psychophanta
okasvi wrote:because var\*pointer is more logical
That's the point.
And if i can do:
then why can not do:
Code: Select all
Structure test
*pointer.Long
pointer.Long
EndStructure
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:01 pm
by Psychophanta
To Fred:
What about this?
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:07 pm
by Fred
After much tough, it won't be changed for now.
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:50 am
by Psychophanta
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:04 pm
by remi_meier
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
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:08 pm
by vanleth
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.