But never, ever, under any circumstances, tell him how! He will kill himself to do it another way, any other way.
![:lol:](http://reboot.pro/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.png)
Posted 15 March 2010 - 12:51 AM
Posted 15 March 2010 - 01:13 AM
My answer is: "It depends"We never get an answer to our question from Nuno. (Does Nuno approve crpytic syntax ?)
http://www.jrothman..../ItDepends.htmlMany of us would like a precise answer to the question: "What's the correct staffing ratio for developers to testers in my product development organization?" Usually though, the only answer is "It depends". Your answer depends on your situation: the kind of project you're working on, your schedule constraints, the culture you work in, and the quality expectations for the product.
Posted 15 March 2010 - 01:15 AM
YES, this is the crux of the issue...and we need to get back to that, and quit pointing fingers at each other.Critical Troubles begins on variable handling (and check example given by Nuno about macro and Galapo) which cause unpredictability.
Galapo open the Right topic with Right example trying to show the upcoming storm. If it was replied honestly there, we would not spend so many days writing same things over and over again.
Posted 15 March 2010 - 01:15 AM
Posted 15 March 2010 - 02:02 AM
In the past it was not needed, now it depends......My answer is: "It depends"
Dependable Warning: Set, can not be used properly when includes comma, you must use escape #$c
Ex:
This is wrong: Set,MacroTest,"Exec,%scriptfile%,test",PERMANENT
This is right: Set,MacroTest,Exec#$c%scriptfile%#$ctest,PERMANENT
I can give more details either in this topic or in another topic. As far as i understand from your macro example, on wb code not using quote as flag handled by checking other things per syntax.I dislike cryptic syntax as much as the next developer but I will base
my opinion in facts and try to understand where and why this is needed.
Your code works in the current alpha
Posted 15 March 2010 - 03:13 AM
Posted 15 March 2010 - 12:19 PM
Posted 15 March 2010 - 03:02 PM
What you mean, is implemented byOne good reason for allowing a script to set variables that are visible to other scripts is for things like the WAIK directory. That is a variable that needs to be set by the user and needs to be visible to many scripts. I agree that it does not need to be permanent though. Global should be good enough.
Set.%Variable%,value,GLOBALFor all scripts processed AFTER this command, %Variable% contains value.
Posted 15 March 2010 - 03:12 PM
Since some days I'm working on it. And it looks rather well.What I don't understand is why he doesn't write a preprocessor that translates the slower syntax into the faster one upon script execution. Shouldn't be much of a problem if the syntax doesn't change in general. This way everyone would be happy. But what do I know. That's just how I would do it
Posted 15 March 2010 - 05:52 PM
Posted 15 March 2010 - 06:05 PM
@Nuno, so when can we get an adult who can actually continue development for the rest of us?Since some days I'm working on it. And it looks rather well.
But since yesterday that will be ONLY an enhancement on my personal WinBuilder.
I stopped publishing because I was sad to waste time in answering to "Many Many Many Many Many Many times" posts and similar.
I personally feel happy with my personal WB version.
Posted 15 March 2010 - 06:10 PM
I guess Nuno start again@Nuno, so when can we get an adult who can actually continue development for the rest of us?
Personally I am in "waiting updates" mode and happly (without need to reply to false things on topics) working on scripts......With some luck I might find some free time to start tonight, will keep you guys updated and then we'll have something to actually talk about with
facts and working code.
Posted 15 March 2010 - 06:12 PM
Since some days I'm working on it. And it looks rather well.
I stopped publishing because I was sad to waste time in answering to "Many Many Many Many Many Many times" posts and similar.
Posted 15 March 2010 - 06:13 PM
OMG, I expect better from my 4 year old!
![]()
Posted 15 March 2010 - 06:22 PM
Posted 15 March 2010 - 06:30 PM
I actually understand Peter's perspective.@Nuno, so when can we get an adult who can actually continue development for the rest of us?
Posted 15 March 2010 - 06:38 PM
Posted 15 March 2010 - 06:45 PM
LiveXP always followed psc's advices with its evolving period. If it does NOT work for anything than there is problem with wb development handling syntax rules, not livexp or any other project.I actually understand Peter's perspective.
We are looking on the wrong direction. Projects like LiveXP are overly complex and winbuilder.exe cannot be expected to continue feeding this problem.
AGAIN WRONG. we do not blame a wb developer for trying to find a solution to script developer. WE ASK the syntaxes worked as written. INSTEAD we get a Silent syntax update which is opposite to what've been written all these 2 years.Instead of blaming a wb developer for trying to find a solution to .script developers, try adopting a simpler scripting because it is indeed possible when you put your mind to it.
But to use the optional "Strict" parser
Posted 15 March 2010 - 06:46 PM
imho psc would not have spent time in this if this syntax correction would not have been showing much improvements ... this is my personal estimation because he spent a lot work in improving win7rescuepe to make it faster and more comfortable ( = his project nativeEx Win7)This has nothing to do with anything you mentioned so I understand what Galapo and Lancelot have been saying, you don't get it. This is only about asking simple, respectful questions e.g. 'will removing commas and quotes increase processing speed enough to justify more cryptic syntax?' etc. and getting 'I'll do it for myself but you can't have it, na na na na na ..' responses.
Posted 15 March 2010 - 06:50 PM
Good, I'll ask you from now on if I have a question for Peterimho psc would not have spent time in this if this syntax correction would not have been showing much improvements ... this is my personal estimation because he spent a lot work in improving win7rescuepe to make it faster and more comfortable ( = his project nativeEx Win7)
Posted 15 March 2010 - 06:52 PM
what is your problem man?Good, I'll ask you from now on if I have a question for Peter
Posted 15 March 2010 - 06:57 PM
Just a joke, man, take it easywhat is your problem man?
what is so difficult about "imho" and "my estimation"?
it is wrong to write my personal opinion?
you have my great respect
Posted 15 March 2010 - 06:58 PM
it is only a cache mechanism. Simply caching core files with initial build by packing than with 7z and extracting with 2nd 3rd big blues.win7rescuepe to make it faster
Posted 15 March 2010 - 07:10 PM
might be that you also had the idea but Peter uses it massively with sucess ... that is the differenceit is only a cache mechanism. Simply caching core files with initial build by packing than with 7z and extracting with 2nd 3rd big blues
It was already (before psc reinvented) written many times by me and by others that same can be done even for application scripts (which i experimented having 10x and more speeds on 2nd 3rd runs) but since we are dealing with medusa bugs (which means working things again not working) a lot time and with having not constant script syntax, never publiced and finished.
Posted 15 March 2010 - 07:19 PM
and back to topic: I do not have any problems with these escape sequences (or strict syntax or in your words "cryptic syntax").
when an apostrophe is allowed, why not a comma?
how is a string stored within winbuilder that it could causes problems?
are there parser that have problems in distinguish between comma as a string and coma as a command?
In my opinion, in a string every literal should be allowed and not be represented by its escape sequence or other placeholders
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users