62 replies to this topic

[Galapo]

So, this is a question for .script developers.

Which agreement has been made between .script developers and WB development?


Use app scripts.

- Abstract the scripts from depending on winbuilder.exe whenever possible (app scripts)
- Keep scripts simple, avoid complex syntax usage
- Use only stable wb versions.

This is the reason why "which agreement was made?" because I only see you and Lancelot refusing to use stable versions.

There is something that needs to be made clear. Bugs will always exists. We release a winbuilder.exe in the hope that most bugs are addressed but this will never happen and the sooner you understand, the better we will be prepared to handle it.

winbuilder.exe will no longer be delayed due to bug fixing. This was a mistake as it caused a huge gap between stable versions.

On your own projects, use a stable version. If you're not using a stable, don't come here complaining that you want to see bugs fixed or some syntax corrected because we are working with the resources that are available.

--------------------------------

If you really want to help as a .script developer I think it would be more helpful if you do research.

Explore other projects, do more boot disks, move to WinPE 3.0 and so forth. We'll keep on improving winbuilder.exe but we'll be doing it at our own pace. No longer will a wb be released just because it works on LiveXP.

We are creating the foundation to ensure that winbuilder can actually work across projects and be better tested before a stable is released.

This includes selecting the bugs that get fixed on each release. The syntax is preferably kept equal between releases but sometimes changes and improvements will occur, that's life. If you use abstraction and keep your scripts simple then it shouldn't impact your past work.

Keep the questions rollin'

Well, I guess the answer is that you don't want to answer the question. All of your above post is stuff I already know. It doesn't address the concerns raised and speaks of side issues so as to make us look silly. Thanks for that, Nuno.

Which agreement has been made between .script developers and  WB development?

Lancelot has already pointed your attention to where this was raised. Read the posts if you're unfamilar, but I assume you should be since you are part of WB development.

In any case, the agreement was reached that WB would again tolerate quotes in syntax and escapes would mostly only be necessary in rare cases and when not using quotes. The attempt was to get back to simpler scripting, where new users aren't confronted with complex escapes and double escapes and triple escapes. You know, I've been coding in AutoIt for many years now and only once or twice in that time have I needed to use an escape. With WB scripts, you need them every single day -- any yet WB scripting language is not as powerful. Tells me that something is drastically wrong. Something is wrong when you're needing to uses escapes of escapes and escapes of escapes of escapes.

I feel sad that WB development doesn't feel the same and rejects the agreement which was reached. Since no answers are forthcoming after a number of days and WB developers seem to have method of trivialising the issue with unrelated issues so those involved look like rediculous complainers, well I guess ship of hope is sunk.

Regards,
Galapo.

[pscEx]

I feel sad that WB development doesn't feel the same and rejects the agreement which was reached.

I do not remember an "agreement" which was reached. There have been some ICQ sessions with Lancelot, but I do not remember any concession I gave. Maybe Lacelot can explain and post my agreement from the ICQ history, and show us "How I'm lying", and I can compare with my history.
But please, no links, only text I wrote in ICQ!
If there is an "Agreement" in the forum: Where and when ?????

On the other hand, as I already explained, I'm feeling (like you) sad to discuss about the current issue. And I want concentrate to develop, rather than to discussions in themes I do not feel worth to discuss.

Peter

[Galapo]

Peter, details in Lancelot's first post here: http://www.boot-land...?...c=10658&hl=

You may not want to remember the agreement and you may not want to discuss the issue -- but that's because you are constantly on the warpath against the use of quotes! You aren't remembering because it suits you to not remember at this point in time. It's just an excuse to again make your "complainers" look bad, as if they don't know what they're talking about. And the result is the need for new .script developers to know complex use of escapes. Then we have escapes of escapes (##$c) and escapes of escapes of escapes (###$c). There's something very wrong with this. I just wish would could escape from escapes! Simpler syntax will benefit everybody, even if there is a little cost in terms of script processing performance. The benefit gained will truely outweight this.

Regards,
Galapo.

[pscEx]

but that's because you are constantly on the warpath against the use of quotes!

That is 100% correct.
Quotes currently give the possibility to "hide" problematic syntax. And I do NOT agree to that.

Next alpha of WB, where I'm currently working on, will have a 100% STRICT syntax. The new features are working with this "STRICT" syntax only.

If you want to use the "Old" syntax, in the script, under [Main] you can delare "Strict=Weak". Then it will use the current weak syntax rules, but none of the new features is available.

Wait for next alpha to test!

Peter

[Lancelot]

I do not remember an "agreement" which was reached. There have been some ICQ sessions with Lancelot, but I do not remember any concession I gave. Maybe Lacelot can explain and post my agreement from the ICQ history, and show us "How I'm lying", and I can compare with my history.
But please, no links, only text I wrote in ICQ!
If there is an "Agreement" in the forum: Where and when ?????

On the other hand, as I already explained, I'm feeling (like you) sad to discuss about the current issue. And I want concentrate to develop, rather than to discussions in themes I do not feel worth to discuss.

Peter

Agreement is (was) for your "no quote mission" you agreed to make wb more clever.
(For the ones WHO can READ from links, follow links, I select only some important ones. Better than copy/paste whole topic and others comments to a single post . Simply, READ before commenting with unrelevant things)

like with set and hence regwrite

#3: As already explained, I "enhanced" the Set command by ALLWAYS exchanging a comma in the value by #$c
So the author's mistake is corrected (by causing some performance decrease), and the following "RegWrite" will work as known since WB 072 (or earlier)

Best post that explains this is here:

Now everybody is happy:

• I'm happy because I needed less than one day to allow this syntay error being processed in that way, like some users assumed to be correct.
• Lancelot is happy because he saved many hours by not writing correct syntax into 3 LiveXP scripts and replace commas by the escape #$c.
• All users are happy because they now can use WB 078 SP6 as 'LiveXP official version' rather than WB 077 RC2.

Peter

But after your post on a wb080 bug topic here

http://winbuilder.ne...tax.html#syntax:

First some general rules and explanations:

1. Besides some special cases (e.g. parameters in ShellExecute) generally enclosing quotes are not needed.
2. Enclosing quotes MUST be used if the WinBuilder Script Line Parameters contain spaces.
If the spaces are replaced by the escape #$s, the enclosing quotes should be ommitted.
3. WinBuilder Script Line Parameters are separated by a comma.
If a comma is inside an argument, it must be 'escaped' by #$c.

In most cases user violation of that rules are accepted by WinBuilder and processed as assumed.
E.g. unnecessary enclosing quotes or a comma inside an item enclosed by quotes.

But sometimes that can bring unexpected results.

Try this:

If,%version%,Smaller,80,Echo,"Winbuilder 080 or higher is required in order to configure advanced options#$c build will continue as normal but ShutdownPE.ini will not be created.",WARN
If,Not,%testvar%,Equal,80,Echo,"Winbuilder 080 or higher is required in order to configure advanced options#$c build will continue as normal but ShutdownPE.ini will not be created.",WARN

Peter

We figured out that you SILENTLY updated script syntax adding above rule 3. at 2010 Feb 19 (the day wb080 released and NOT to wb080 syntax page, to general syntax page, after development topic ends, good work)

Further:
REMEMBER I give you the idea of seperating wb with 2 syntax rules, 1 strick and 1 toleratings quotes with mods + cons.
mods: you can make the new syntax as you like. BUT you must be carelfull since nobody would like another syntax disaster like you created before
mods: a new user can easly start script writing because it is easier
cons: you need to provide support for both syntaxes in order to keep mods and in order not to bully.
REMEMBER we discussed flags for such a scripts organisation (either with a flag at [main] section or by not using [process] on new generation scripts but only use [processXX] to protect old winbuilder processing new scripts --- and we know wb tends to break consistancy of a script with never versions ==> 2 insurance)

MOSTLY REMEMBER: I and Galapo always worked with you cooperatively to make things better. We did not do something behind you silently and try to figure out your goals for better winbuilder for ALL. We did not sit back only watching you making bad releases, we keep the hope for the next release and we contribute widely to have a solid release with "STRICK rules". REMEMBER, I am your top most supporter for "Strick rules" within the ease of usability.

But instead, we could; not update to new wb, and complain about bad releases around saying "psc, You are doing good , keep going", but we did NOT.

And you forget that all , and forget what you've done !!!! Thanks a lot. You are doing good

edit: minor addings

[Galapo]

That is 100% correct.
Quotes currently give the possibility to "hide" problematic syntax. And I do NOT agree to that.

Well, that is your own negative attitude to it. Positively put, quotes allow for greater freedom in not having to use so many damn escape sequences.

So I guess now the agreement which was reached is now no longer silent rejection, but is now voiced above. So I guess you just made the agreement at the time to just get some silence while you continued on with your (then silent, but slighthly later written to syntax page, but now voiced above) vendetta against quotes. This is why Lancelot is going on about lies -- because you gave your word with regards to the use of quotes, but really you had no intention of keeping it. This is very sad indeed.

Regards,
Galapo.

[Galapo]

Maybe perhaps Nuno can see the issue now? It's not about test projects or app scripts or countless other things he's written about. It's about the foundation. It's about what is acceptable script syntax.

Regards,
Galapo.

[sbaeder]

Next alpha of WB, where I'm currently working on, will have a 100% STRICT syntax. The new features are working with this "STRICT" syntax only.

If you want to use the "Old" syntax, in the script, under [Main] you can delare "Strict=Weak". Then it will use the current weak syntax rules, but none of the new features is available.

Just a suggestion that it be called

"Syntax=Weak"

or something like that so that it clearly refers to syntax. Maybe it's a native english thing, but "strict" and "weak" are just opposites of each other and are more descriptive of an item...

[Galapo]

Then it will use the current weak syntax rules, but none of the new features is available.

Peter, can you spell out which new features will be unavailable if using the weak syntax?

Thanks,
Galapo.

[Wonko the Sane]

Just a suggestion that it be called

"Syntax=Weak"

or something like that so that it clearly refers to syntax. Maybe it's a native english thing, but "strict" and "weak" are just opposites of each other and are more descriptive of an item...

To be picky (as I am ) I see not the need of using an attribute for a binary value.

Strict_Syntax=1

or

Strict_Syntax=0

seems to me even more clear.

I mean, it's a switch, it is either ON or OFF, not "halfway" like "weak" may seem, and then someone would post whining saying that:
Strict=feeble
or
Strict=lackadaisical
is not working.





Wonko

[Wonko the Sane]

I prefer to work on development for the other (about) 34000 members.

Of which approximately 33950 will either:

• fail to report an error properly
• harass the remaining 49 (psc excluded) because "script xxyyzz is not working"
• just stare silently at this utter and complete defeat of "common sense" and logic I am witnessing lately about these themes

But try to handle it like a man. Kick him against the shin, so that we all got something from it.

SHIN?

That's what little girls do, real men go all the way and kick asses allright!

http://www.imdb.com/...250777/taglines

I can't fly. But I can kick your ass.

Wonko

[Brito]

Of which approximately 33950 will either:

* fail to report an error properly
* harass the remaining 49 (psc excluded) because "script xxyyzz is not working"
* just stare silently at this utter and complete defeat of "common sense" and logic I am witnessing lately about these themes

Yes, exactly.

That's the reason why winbuilder.exe is putting an halt to all the advanced functionality that is only used by one or two .script developers. It became very difficult to maintain and it will require time to mature in terms of logical coherency.

As for scripts that don't work. This situation is also being worked on. The first step was moving the downloads section from the external component and bring it completely to the forums.

Scripts based on API commands are expected to remain functional across projects but it seems that API itself is also growing so much in complexity and dependency to certain projects that is no longer abstract from specific winbuilder.exe or specific projects, defeating the overall purpose of API scripting. (we also need to get back on track about API but it will be another war for the next months)

The transition is not yet finished but it will allow every .script developer to update older topics from other members if necessary.

[Lancelot]

Scripts based on API commands are expected to remain functional across

Wrong, if basic functions of wb do not have easly usable rules, scripts will not remain functional.

but it seems that API itself is also growing so much in complexity and dependency to certain projects that is no longer abstract from specific winbuilder.exe or specific projects, defeating the overall purpose of API scripting. (we also need to get back on track about API but it will be another war for the next months)

This is wrong too.
Api script itsself is not important.
What is important is the syntax rules to be shared between projects. Hence the one that makes an api for himself by following already existing Api syntax rules will again have a compatible project that makes api made apps script working.

There are good examples:
**Following advices, BeatZero already learned and made his own api by using existing api syntax rules, which as a result apps scripts around (except wb dependecny for basic syntax) will be compatible with Live98 (ps: under constraction)
**Capi of LiveXP is a modified old version which gives all options of latest capi v21 hence all scripts made to work with capi v21 also work with LiveXP.

as a result:

Scripts based on API commands are expected to remain functional across projects

goal reached for api type, but sadly winbuilder does not have well written RULES and easy syntax to follow. NOBODY-1 knows what is coming next.


ONLY 1 thing missing for harmony, and That is what we are looking for, we want easly usable and strick winbuilder rules.

What we get is some replies that does not have an intention for that goal. Good work Nuno.

[Brito]

Api script itsself is not important.

It's the foundation of app scripts.

If you have an API so complicated that nobody knows how to use it, something is seriously wrong.

We don't need more wacky features, please wake to the reality. Nobody is using something so complicated and even winbuilder has gained a reputation of instability and complexity because of your efforts.

Now, instead of recognizing this serious complexity issue. You even complain as if winbuilder.exe has the fault of having implemented your requests since 2007 and not being able to deliver a perfect result.

but sadly winbuilder does not have well written RULES and easy syntax to follow. NOBODY-1 knows what is coming next.

I completely agree with you. During these two years have you ever bothered yourself in writing RULES or adapting them?

I say this because for two years we had at least NOBODY+3 people following closely the syntax changes.

I know that Peter was busy with wb development and then only you and Galapo understood what was being changed. Did any of you both contributed to properly document the changes? I saw Peter doing some effort but this is more than what a single human can support.

And you still complain?

All other .script developers should actually be complaining at you guys that this situation happened for so long but instead of complaining they just faded away since 2007.

The API become so complex to understand and LiveXP adopted sintax and beta wb versions out of tone from any stable versions that people are even scared of trying wb thinking that they need to be rocket scientists or something.

Now the RULES are simple.

We detail how each wb function is expected to work, document or refresh existent documentation as needed and we write test cases to validate the functioning of winbuilder.exe

I couldn't care less about silent agreements, stories, dramas, rants, lies, grudges or whatever.

WinBuilder is moving to a stronger future and you're welcome to come but the development plans and rules are going to be followed for everyone's sake from here forward.

[Lancelot]

even winbuilder has gained a reputation of instability and complexity because of your efforts.

winbuilder has gained a reputations of instability and complexity not because of our efforts.

WE#$sNEVEr#$swrite#$sanywhere#$c#$scomma#$sand#$sspace
#$sshould#$sbe#$sused#$sinstead#$sof#$squotes#$c#$sit#$swas#$swritten
#$sSILENTLY#$sby#$swinbuilder#$sdevelopment#$sto#$sscript.syntax#$s.NOT#$sBY#$sUS
==>
"WE NEVEr write anywhere, comma and space should be used instead of quotes, it was written SILENTLY by winbuilder development to script.syntax .NOT BY US"

please read the silent update of wb syntax http://winbuilder.ne...tax.html#syntax

2. Enclosing quotes MUST be used if the WinBuilder Script Line Parameters contain spaces.
If the spaces are replaced by the escape #$s, the enclosing quotes should be ommitted.
3. WinBuilder Script Line Parameters are separated by a comma.
If a comma is inside an argument, it must be 'escaped' by #$c.

Now, instead of recognizing this serious complexity issue. You even complain as if winbuilder.exe has the fault of having implemented your requests since 2007 and not being able to deliver a perfect result.

winbuilder implemented requests not for only me, for everybody. My basic syntax requests mostly replaced with complex ones which does the same thing like holding left ear with right hand. Besides we did not complain but use the provided syntax and informed the issues related with them.

I completely agree with you. During these two years have you ever bothered yourself in writing RULES or adapting them?

Come on Nuno, there is already "newly publicly accepted" plan since running after wb074 which cause most of the issues. Neither I nor others do not have a plan of removing quotes, we can not have, and we did not have a request for that. As far as I know it was runned by psc causing more medusa issues on every release which we supported him to fix them in every release since he promised using both quotes and none-quotes will be maintained but using quotes would slow down. Check topics and please remember. THERE IS NO silent agreement or whatsoever, all done publicly for that goal.

I say this because for two years we had at least NOBODY+3 people following closely the syntax changes.

I know that Peter was busy with wb development and then only you and Galapo understood what was being changed. Did any of you both contributed to properly document the changes? I saw Peter doing some effort but this is more than what a single human can support.

Yes we did. Whenever psc asked I provided him ready text pages which could be easyl copy-paste to syntax page. He never asked me to to my own and i find it wrong doing changes without his knowledge which would cause problems. Instead I reminded him all the time to update the missings with providing texts but he put the ones he liked and ignored the others he do not.

I couldn't care less about silent agreements, stories, dramas, rants, lies, grudges or whatever.

Me too, that is the reason agreements are public. Haven't you read other posts around !!!!.

WinBuilder is moving to a stronger future and you're welcome to come but the development plans and rules are going to be followed for everyone's sake from here forward.

That is what we want but we can not mostly get direct answers from you when we post our concerns...

[Brito]

winbuilder has gained a reputations of instability and complexity not because of our efforts.

Sure thing..

I'm sure many people are using Macros right now while also complaining about about syntax incoherency and using beta versions on their projects.

Neither I nor others do not have a plan of removing quotes

In that case, stop whinning and start a new topic expressing your opinion. Gather more developers to support it and actually do something instead of ranting about this in off-topic.

Do something with proper arguments why it should or shouldn't change.

I'm getting tired of splitting your replies into separate topics to keep them focused, it would be about time that you did this by yourself to help everyone know what you want to see discussed.

[Lancelot]

In that case, stop whinning and start a new topic expressing your opinion.

already expressed at post 1 of current topic where you cut from.

I'm sure many people are using Macros right now while also complaining about about syntax incoherency and using beta versions on their projects.

Read Galapo's posts at bug topic. This is not created by us, we always used provided internal wb syntaxes which as a result made LiveXP bug catcher of wb releases. Truely, we are going backward now in order not to have more requests for fixes.

Do something with proper arguments why it should or shouldn't change.

Again check post 1 of current topic where you cut from. It is hard to make proper argumetns when not open replies comes.

I'm getting tired of splitting your replies into separate topics to keep them focused, it would be about time that you did this by yourself to help everyone know what you want to be discussed.

I do not want to discuss anything. Only replying wrong things on your posts which is mostly out of main subject.

Questions are clear, but when replied with wrong things that are not related to the quoestion, sadly the wrong thing replied which cause soap opera topics not by US. Lots of questions asked yet not answered.
Galapo better write the neccessatiy of quoets: not replied by you .
Radilibilty and easy syntax requires quotes: not replied by you (and hiddenly updated rules eventually lowering wb syntax readibility has nothing to do with our requests)

So far we get only 1 reply. Somewhere on a topic psc declared he is against quotes and wrote he will split syntax rules. But following question asked by Galapo again not answered.
Besides some fixes on history gives an idea that says quotes are still supported !!! so why there are these 2. 3. rules still on script syntax.
.........

I am tired of this. It is truely meaningless.

[Brito]

already expressed

No, that's a different topic.

There is a difference between complaining about quotes and complaining about the difference in behavior at some wb commands. Instead of mixing these together let's try to keep everything on their own topics.

Galapo better write the neccessatiy of quoets: not replied by you .
Radilibilty and easy syntax requires quotes

Where?

Does this has it's own topic or is placed somewhere amongst a topic with pages and pages of discussions regarding any other topic. Focus. Create one topic for each issue.

Like explained before (several times actually), please either you or Galapo start a new topic to rally the opinions of other developers.

[Lancelot]

No, that's a different topic.

There is a difference between complaining about quotes and complaining about the difference in behavior at some wb commands. Instead of mixing these together let's try to keep everything on their own topics.

They are same Nuno, This is what we are writing all the time.

There are strong bonds between "quote tolerance" and "difference in behavior at some wb commands"

Galapo gave example.
I gave historical references.
And both we write reasons why quotes necessary.
(no need to write them again and again ... since I already replied same things 5 times)

what we get is only wrong accusation replies or soap opera replies , that is all. Thanks again.

[Brito]

There are strong bonds between "quote tolerance" and "difference in behavior at some wb commands"

It's ok to have dependencies but keep them separated otherwise that will serve as excuse to hundreds of replies per topics that nobody knows what is going on.

Galapo gave example.

Sure. Inside some topic with an unrelated topic title.

Sure thing we'll remember that within a few months. Other developers will instinctively know what it is all about and even know where to magically find it..

(no need to write them again and again ... since I already replied same things 5 times)

This time try writing each issue on a separated topic with a meaningful and accurate topic title for a change. You'd be surprised how many people like topics that are clear and straight to the point.

[Galapo]

If you have an API so complicated that nobody knows how to use it, something is seriously wrong.

Well, I could say if you have a WinBuilder which uses such difficult syntax rules like the need for escapes of escapes of escapes (eg ###$c etc.), then something is seriously wrong. We thought we were starting to get beyond this issue, but now we find Peter is still on his rampage against quotes.

Nuno, you've been out of .script development for so long that you can start making statements like the above! It's just not true!

api commands remain what they were and there has always been backwards compatibility maintained if new features are added (unlike WB!!). Now the CAPI script itself is quite big, but the api commands themselves remain simple. writing app scripts remains as simple as the day when it was started. CAPI is currently being maintained by me, Lancelot, Max, and Marcus. And do you hear any of US complaining about CAPI? No. Yet you stand from the sidelines and complain about it even though you're not maintaining that script.

Now, you seem to forget that CAPI "translates" project-independent syntax into WB syntax appropriate for each project. As such CAPI makes use of WB syntax -- and it is this WB syntax -- NOT CAPI syntax! -- which remains still in a state of unpredicatability. Peter wants to implement his regime of no-quote syntax, even though this gives rise to endless escapes and escapes of escapes syntax. That means if Peter gets his way, the current CAPI script will again have to be written to conform to Peter's new syntax, other basic scripts will need to be rewritten, etc. Project maintainers like Lancelot and myself are sick of this. We'd reached an agreement with Peter, but he's gone back on his agreement and forging ahead. It's not really a bright future I can see unless one takes delight in writing ###$c and suchlike.

Regards,
Galapo.

[Galapo]

This time try writing each issue on a separated topic with a meaningful and accurate topic title for a change. You'd be surprised how many people like topics that are clear and straight to the point.

Sadly, that's starting to become your predicatable response -- sidestep the issue, leave it untreated, and pass the buck back. You could just say that you have no intention of dealing with the issues raised to save us all the waste of time this is becoming because that is effectively what you are doing by sidestepping all the time and by keeping raise side issue distractions.

Regards,
Galapo.

[Brito]

Sadly, that's starting to become your predicatable response -- sidestep the issue, leave it untreated, and pass the buck back. You could just say that you have no intention of dealing with the issues raised to save us all the waste of time this is becoming because that is effectively what you are doing by sidestepping all the time and by keeping raise side issue distractions.

Sure it's my predicable reply.

Why do you insist in discussing topics that are not related?

Driving discussion into off-topic is not the correct way of doing things. If I had no intention of dealing with them, it might as well just be better for me to let them keep off-topic and perfectly ignored by people that don't read one given discussion.

Can't you see that creating one topic for one issue will help other developers to read what you're trying to express?

It's not really a bright future I can see unless one takes delight in writing ###$c and suchlike.

Start a poll, get more developers expressing their feelings about this.

Be a man..
-qtrAMK7_Qk


-------------------------------------------------------

Nuno, you've been out of .script development for so long that you can start making statements like the above! It's just not true!

I've been watching this show go for a long time and I just can't keep on watching wb fall into a spiral of over-complexity, unreliable testing, inadequate bug reporting, magic agreements, grudges and general disorganization in the way how requests and decisions are made.

It's not your fault, it's not PSC's fault, it's nobody's fault but things just aren't right.

Maybe it's time for you guys to also think on what we are trying to change here.

Now it's time to introduce changes. We are reorganizing development to address some of these issues, this means using rules and good sense to ensure that everyone can play together.

[Galapo]

Sure it's my predicable reply.

Why do you insist in discussing topics that are not related?

Because in essense it's all related.

And in one sense you started all this off-topic posting by posting in my bug-topic post after past that had nothing essentially to do with the issue. This spun the issue out into all sorts of offtopic tangents.

OK, let's focus. There's two issues that this topic is essentially about. It's not to do with CAPI. It's not to do with test project. It's simply about:

1. An agreement had been reached between myself, Lancelot, and Peter over the use of quotes (and other who were also following the development topic, it's all in the topic at the development subforum which Lancelot has repeatedly referenced). The agreement was that WB would move to implementing this as the basic form of syntax. This would mean that the need for ###$c etc would be very much minimised, making script development easier and more fun for everyone. Since then, Peter has gone back on his agreement, evident in various bug reports lately, his editing of the syntax page, and admitted by him here: http://www.boot-land...?...ost&p=94253. Essentially what he is saying is that he's going to force everyone to adopt his no-quote rule, or else they will be left with unsupported WB functions and new functions unavailable if your script uses quote syntax. So essentially this is about the future of default WB syntax: a quote or no quote syntax for WB scripting. It's not about CAPI. It's not about a test project to maintain standards. It's about what is accepted WB syntax.

2. Secondly this is about the related issue of sensibility in WB scripting. We feel that since WB script syntax has yet to be settled, now is the time to make a stand to restore some common sense. Quotes aid this sensibility. And quotes help to minimise the need for escapes, or in WB syntax case, the need for escapes of escapes of escapes (###$c etc.). When you're requiring double and triple escape sequences all the time, it tells that there is something fundamentally wrong. We need some common sense restored is all. That's what this is also about.

Maybe it's time for you guys to also think on what we are trying to change here.

Well, it's not as if we need to go away and think about it -- as if we are unsure and we didn't really know what we've been trying to say the last days! We've been posting on exactly the same things the last few days. Again I've clearly outlined the issues above. That's all that Lancelot and I have been posting on. It's there for you to either go offtopic, ignore, say to raise it in another topic -- or hopefully at last to discuss! Please choose to discuss!

Thanks,
Galapo.

[Lancelot]

1. An agreement had been reached between myself, Lancelot, and Peter over the use of quotes (and other who were also following the development topic, it's all in the topic at the development subforum which Lancelot has repeatedly referenced).

Hi Galapo,

I must say this partially wrong.

removing quotes operations start after wb074 (with causing medusa issues) and all this time up to development topic psc always wrote quotes tolerated but it speeds down the performance.

And psc "adviced" removing quotes , and I am following his advice on some heavy reg loaded scripts to improve performance only.

There are some topics where users write their ideas about removing and not removing.
I also wrote my comment on such topics, "I remove quotes only if readibility has no importance (no need escapes), hence I keep quotes to read script lines easly."

It is everywhere around the boot-land, only requires a finder to find these info or a memory is enough.


As far as i remember, what happened on development topic, I guess psc wrote not to tolerate quotes somewhere and it was discussed and he accepted. (or probably (which fits his style more), he kept silence and planned to write silently to script syntax rule the day wb080 release, at that times we could not know this fact.)

There is NO magic agreement, there is NO hidden agreement. Except development topic rest is allllll around topics. And development topic is also public. We have nothing to hide.

edit: boot-land