[Implemented] EnableExplicit + CompilerIf + Not
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:47 pm
Code: Select all
EnableExplicit
CompilerIf Not #PB_Compiler_Thread
CompilerEndIfPureBasic Forums - English
http://www.purebasic.com
https://www.purebasic.fr/english/
[Implemented] EnableExplicit + CompilerIf + Not
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:55 am
despite this is not a Bug-Report (a "report" should consist of some text)
I'll answer: Not is a Runtime-Operation.
I'll answer: Not is a Runtime-Operation.
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:03 am
IMHO, some people doesn't speak english, or speak not so good english, so aKaeru Gaman wrote:despite this is not a Bug-Report (a "report" should consist of some text)
example is better bugreport as a text in bad english
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:03 am
I think the problem is that the compiler throws a weird message if EnableExplicit is enabled. If you turn it off, you get a more understandable message about you can't use NOT there.
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:12 pm
@ts
ok, I'll respect.
@thefool
so it turns out to be the problem that a runtime-operation could not be used in a compile-time condition.. or...?
ok, I'll respect.
@thefool
so it turns out to be the problem that a runtime-operation could not be used in a compile-time condition.. or...?
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:15 pm
Kaeru Gaman wrote: to be the problem that a runtime-operation could not be used in a compile-time condition.. or...?
yup. as you said, not is a runtime thingPB Compiler wrote: Integer constant expression expected for compiler directives
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:37 pm
I'd say it is a bug.
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:42 pm
That pb can't use NOT compile time or that the debugger goes off with a weird error message?Psychophanta wrote:I'd say it is a bug.
If the first, then its more like a feature request. PB would need to intergrate a NOT check in the pre-compiler
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:09 pm
The second,thefool wrote:That pb can't use NOT compile time or that the debugger goes off with a weird error message?
however, if PB allows Or, And and Xor for compile time, then it would allow also Not, but if PB doesn't allow any then should not be allow Not; just coherence.
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:12 pm
It's also because Not is more readable than "= #False" or "= 0"
Dri
Dri
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:41 pm
It can't be considered as bug, as it is intendent (Not is (for now) a runtime only operand.