PureBasic Forums - English

Deprecate words 'Dim', 'NewList', 'NewMap' and use just 'Array', 'List' and 'Map' respectively instead.

I like your suggestion. It would bring a little more consistency to the syntax. +1

Dim fill a Array (global or structure) with null, and we have a ReDim to expand the array. You will rename it to ReArray?

NewList and NewMap creates new lists or maps.
Array, List and Map don't create it directly, it will use only in procedure parameters or in structes.

So I think the different names are right!

STARGÅTE wrote:So I think the different names are right!

+1

What about a new dim called NewDim (or NewArray) then? Next step would RedimArray, of course

Not easy to get a consistent catalouge of function names - as a result, I sometimes need to check the help file to find some rarely used function names, because I forgot, if it was CountListSize or ListCount or ListSize, or even ListItems?

Why not just let it as it is?

It works - it's BASIC - and Hundreds and Thousands of usermade Functions are programmed with it!
Shall we always change our Software because someone has a new idea?

Adding stuff is good - changing it is bad in most cases - especially if it is used since "centuries"

Especially removing Dim from Basic would be a scandal ... unthinkable ... used it since Commodore PET 2032 ... and that was in 1978


.

Thade wrote:Why not just let it as it is?

+9999999

Michael Vogel wrote:What about a new dim called NewDim (or NewArray) then? Next step would RedimArray, of course

Not easy to get a consistent catalouge of function names - as a result, I sometimes need to check the help file to find some rarely used function names, because I forgot, if it was CountListSize or ListCount or ListSize, or even ListItems?

+1

I just had the same idea. At least for NewList and NewMap renaming to just List and Map makes sense for me. The New prefix is not really required, and without it is similar when using them inside a structure.

Thade wrote:...removing Dim from Basic would be a scandal ... unthinkable ... used it since Commodore PET 2032 ... and that was in 1978

More like 1964!

BASIC Commands - THE ORIGINAL-ORIGINAL VERSION

STARGÅTE wrote: So I think the different names are right!

Thade wrote: Why not just let it as it is?

+ 10^48

I think changes in the syntax should be the absolute exception and require very good reasons.

TI-994A wrote:

Thade wrote:...removing Dim from Basic would be a scandal ... unthinkable ... used it since Commodore PET 2032 ... and that was in 1978

More like 1964!

The PET was available in Germany in 1978
And I do not think it was 1964 elsewhere in the world ...
In 1964 The Beatles were #1 to #5 in the US Charts ... I don't know how many people used home computers these days. But I bet it were less than 1
The first programmable calculator with magnet strips to save code I had was in 1976 or so ... a TI-59

Using a PET in 1964 shows that you must come from a parallel universe ... please tell us more about it

BTW: In 1983 I had also a TI-99 4A and published a game ... hmm ... have to look up the name ...

Thade wrote:Using a PET in 1964 shows that you must come from a parallel universe ...

Since my post was referring to the BASIC Dim statement, it seems that you're the one living in the parallel universe.

Thade wrote:BTW: In 1983 I had also a TI-99 4A and published a game ...

Me too. I did a version of Space Invaders and Cluedo. Come to think of it, having had to save all the hours of typing onto cassette tape, my trusty old TI-994A never crashed on me. That's good engineering.

uwekel wrote:I just had the same idea. At least for NewList and NewMap renaming to just List and Map makes sense for me. The New prefix is not really required, and without it is similar when using them inside a structure.

Me likes this idea too. But I suspect, Fred visits "Feature Requests and Wishlists" just once a year and picks up a random one

STARGÅTE wrote:NewList and NewMap creates new lists or maps.
Array, List and Map don't create it directly, it will use only in procedure parameters or in structs.

Playing devils advocate , if we adhere to this philosophy, then we would have to change all other variables to include the New word...
Protected TestVar.Newi

The reality is that having the keyword within a Structure or Procedure declaration makes the language unambiguous.

I find this request totally logical. I have requested a similar "standardizing" of the syntax consistency, to expand the PeekS and PokeS format to include a new ReadS, instead of Read.s.
http://purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=59865

With this current request, most of the votes for "Don't change" are because people do not want to update old code. However, Fred is very good at depreciating commands without immediately eliminating them...but even so, only the simplest of 4.x code works in a current compiler without edits. Heck, even 5.2 (?) forces an update if code contains pointer typing.

IMHO, this will be an exceptionally easy port; a mere search/replace. It will not significantly help current experienced users. (Although I, myself, just an average guy with several MB of code, still just automatically type List for everything and fix the syntax errors where NewList is required.) However, this Wish will advance the simplicity of PB, reducing its quirks, and make it even easier for newbies.

I am +1.