I'll try code:
Code: Select all
put "hello""world"
Thanks!
Moderators: FourthWorld, heatherlaine, Klaus, kevinmiller, LCMark
Code: Select all
put "hello""world"
Code: Select all
start using font "myfont.ttf"
Code: Select all
local globally
put "-suffix" into globally
start using font "myfont.ttf" globally
Code: Select all
put "a" : "b" : "c" into tVar
This is pretty cool, however, some braces and just using comma might work better for array assignment. I think it more clearly demonstrates what's happening. It also leaves : for return if you want that...Would result in a sequenced array tVar[1] = "a", tVar[2] = "b", tVar[3] = "c" - it would make a nice complement to "," which is essentially a string list concatenation operator.
Well, at least the general case. We could potentially experiment with making things like 'tab' and 'return' binary (and potentially unary) operators at some point with the new parser but I'm not sure how well that will work. So:So implied concatenation is out.
Code: Select all
put "a" return "b" -- return is a binary operator here (concat return)
put return "a" -- return is a left unary operator here
put "a" return -- return is a right unary operator here
Code: Select all
put return return return
I guess the following syntax wouldn't be too bad:This is pretty cool, however, some braces and just using comma might work better for array assignment. I think it more clearly demonstrates what's happening. It also leaves : for return if you want that...
Code: Select all
put [ "a" , "b", "c" ] into tVar
Code: Select all
split variable { by | with | using } primaryDelimiter [and secondaryDelimiter] as table [with keys keyNames]
Code: Select all
put [ "a", "b", "c" ] into tVar
Code: Select all
put sequence( "a", "b", "c" ) into tVar
Code: Select all
put [ [ "a", "b" ], [ "c", f(x)] ] into y
Code: Select all
put [ "reset" ] into cmds
Code: Select all
put "reset"->[1] into cmds
put 1:"reset" into cmds
put *"reset" into cmds
Code: Select all
put goHomeCmds : *"reset" : cleanRoomCmds(room) into cmds
put goHomeCmds & [ "reset" ] & cleanRoomCmds(room) into cmds
put { goHomeCmds ["reset"] cleanRoomCmds(room) } into cmds
Code: Select all
put catSeq( goHomeCmds, sequence("reset"), cleanRoomCmds(room) ) into cmds
Code: Select all
put { goHomeCmds "reset" cleanRoomCmds(room) } into cmds
Code: Select all
put (goHomeCmds "reset" "do twice" [cleanRoomCmds(room)] } into cmds
Code: Select all
set the htmlText of field 1 to '<font color="red">' & "someText" & '</font>'
Code: Select all
" tags in Firefox)
I certainly think so. See my example re: color="red"If single quotes (') are consumed (from the cool symbols for future use) and used as an alternative bracketing in string literals, then should double quotes (") be allowed in single-quote strings?
Hmmm. Possibly, although readability and compiler parsing are still problems with things like """hey!"" & he repeated, ""I said quote & ""stop that!"" & quote".If repeated quotes ("") are allowed to represent a double quote (") in double-quote strings (that source of horror), can some sort of colorization be used to mitigate any readability problems?