Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

Commas vs non-commas


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#26 Lancelot

Lancelot

    Frequent Member


  • .script developer
  • 5013 posts
  • Location:Turkiye/Izmir
  • Interests:*Mechanical stuff and Physics,
    *LiveXP, BartPE, SherpyaXPE,
    *Basketball and Looong Walking,
    *Buying outwear for my girlf (Reason: Girls are stupid about buying bad stuff to make themselves uglier :))
    *Girls (Lyric: Girl,...., You will be a womann, Soon)
    *Answering questions for "Meaning of life",
    *Helping people,

    Kung with LiveXP, Fu with Peter :)
  •  
    Turkey

Posted 14 March 2010 - 05:22 PM

Exactly! :lol:

Your code works in the current alpha and will continue work with the future default "Weak" option which is nothing else like using the current engine.

But to use the optional "Strict" parser which is running much faster, there are stronger rules. And every .script developer can decide voluntarily for the faster method.


@ALL

As I wrote before many times, here again:
As you can see above, not using quotes were optional declared PUBLICLY (no magic, hidden agreement) by psc long time ago after sometime 074> release.

The reason discussion we started after noticing "SILENT UPDATE" of syntax rules

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

3. WinBuilder Script Line Parameters are separated by a comma.
If a comma is inside an argument, it must be 'escaped' by #$c.


IF it is optional (which was written PUBLICKLY lots of time) WHY we have this must rule on syntax page ?

it should be something like:

3. Enclosing quotes MUST be used if the WinBuilder Script Line Parameters contain commas. ("boot-land,nuno")
If the commas are replaced by the escape #$c, the enclosing quotes should be ommitted.(boot-land#$cnuno)


ps: yes I reminded psc numerous times to put this to syntax page in the past. Instead we see this Silent Update rule.

Since we do not have a declared rule on syntaxpage for tolerating quotes, what will happen is up to development. They can tolerate today to lower down the voices till "the day".......

Comments of current topic I hope clear enough for them.

#27 TheK

TheK

    Frequent Member


  • Advanced user
  • 141 posts
  • Location:Germany (BW)
  •  
    Germany

Posted 14 March 2010 - 05:38 PM

Can we please get back on track?

Why? psc already made up his mind about the new syntax. Any further discussion is useless and just a waste of time.

#28 patsch

patsch

    Silver Member


  • Advanced user
  • 785 posts
  •  
    Germany

Posted 14 March 2010 - 05:43 PM

@Lancelot : sorry, but now it really bugs ... so many threads with all the same from you ... and now here again
by now I really lose any motivation to think about problems and solutions concerning the topic ... thx for that

#29 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member


  • Team Reboot
  • 10452 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 14 March 2010 - 06:15 PM

Why? psc already made up his mind about the new syntax. Any further discussion is useless and just a waste of time.

This is not correct.

Humans often think and see one solution as the most correct until someone else demonstrates other solutions that provide more advantages. For this reason wb development is not a single person's work, either PSC or myself are only trying to find a solution between all the tough decisions and tradeoffs that need to be made.

This case is not different. We already seen that using extreme situations with commas and without commas is not desired and that a balance must be reached.

Personally, I see commas as problematic in commands that require a complex notation.

If the problem as mentioned by Lancelot is documentation, this can be solved quickly and it's not an issue. So, for a moment forget documentation and let's focus on how things should be done.

The problem with quotes and commas is the fact that they are used to split the parameters of each command and on the case of strings, to keep them in context and possibly allow using commas in text.

This worked well for simple commands as:
echo,"Hello, how are you?"

But it won't work well on:
Set,MacroTest,"Exec,%scriptfile%,test",PERMANENT

Because the second parameter of test is open to any given number of arguments and still needs to interpret a final switch (on this case PERMANENT).

To be honest, I don't even understand why PERMANENT is needed. This adds one more variable to the runtime execution that affects all scripts going down the execution lane for variables that are probably only used a couple of times.

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

This is not easy to handle. As for my opinion I would not go down this road.

Set was originally meant to assign a value to a variable and this is an attempt of running code directly from a variable which is not the real purpose for this function.

This level of complexity is also one of the reasons why script code looks so cryptic nowadays, commands are having mixed functions and to make things work minimally ok, you can't have commas so that you can at least understand where the second parameter begins and ends.

It would be simpler to just add a new variable for this specific purpose. Because it solves the pandora box of commas/non-commas.

Then you could use:

script.project
[variables]
MacroTest=Exec,%scriptfile%,test


This would be clearer regarding the meaning of what you're trying to achieve as:
Set,MacroTest,"Exec,%scriptfile%,test",PERMANENT

Instead of using a PERMANENT switch, just add this var on script.project to keep things together. If your project is depending on way too many variables and macros to be listed inside the main project file, then it would likely be a good indicator that the project is growing in over-complexity.

#30 amalux

amalux

    Platinum Member


  • Tutorial Writer
  • 2813 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 14 March 2010 - 07:56 PM

Well, first, thank you very much for the open discussion; I think I finally understand the issues and I must say, I don't have a problem with the strict/weak option. It seems this could have been handled so much better by addressing the issues raised in a timely, respectful manner instead of the dismissive, evasion and distraction that has fueled so much animus on the part of those with concerns. No one likes being told, regarding a project they've spent thousands of hours working on, 'we're changing it, we don't need your approval, get over it'. Sure, it's true but it's no way to treat your 'customers' or your contributors or your friends. Anyway, thanks again for finally dealing with the concerns raised and opening a respectful discourse.

:lol:

#31 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member


  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 14 March 2010 - 08:57 PM

Why? psc already made up his mind about the new syntax. Any further discussion is useless and just a waste of time.

This is not correct.

Well, unfortunately, you are wrong Nuno:

Your code works in the current alpha and will continue work with the future default "Weak" option which is nothing else like using the current engine.

But to use the optional "Strict" parser which is running much faster, there are stronger rules. And every .script developer can decide voluntarily for the faster method.


Because you see, Peter has our arm behind our back forcing us to use his new quote free syntax. He's already stated new functions and developments will only be available if a developer sticks to his WinBuilderish quote-free syntax etc. So you'll be left behind in developments. He's basically got us over a barrel.

So what's the point in writing a test project for the so-called weak syntax? This is being superceeded. As such, new syntax is again coming. Test projects cannot be written until this new syntax is completely operational.

It was you, Lancelot and Galapo that requested this topic to be made available: http://www.boot-land...?...ost&p=94488

Nope, wrong! We we just requesting you keep your offtopic test project comments out of a topic about more essential matters.

To be honest, I don't even understand why PERMANENT is needed. This adds one more variable to the runtime execution that affects all scripts going down the execution lane for variables that are probably only used a couple of times.

Again shows me that you've been out of script development for too long. You should be relying on Lancelot and myself who have stick with it and know the ins and outs to be helping you here. But you're essentially forcing us out by not working with us and not listening.

Regards,
Galapo.

#32 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder


  • Advanced user
  • 13749 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 14 March 2010 - 08:58 PM

Can we please get back on track?

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

What I'm trying to understand here are the specific cases where not using commas is absolutely essential.


Sure we can. :cheers:

Please start a new topic here:
http://www.boot-land...php?showforum=7
right now this is in "Community forum > Vote! > Commas vs non-commas".


We voted.

Discussion is not suited here.

:lol:

Wonko

#33 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member


  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 14 March 2010 - 09:05 PM

If we can't with live without commas and if we also can't live with them, what other solutions do you propose to recognize this code portion:

Well, Nuno, the primary issue isn't about commas. You're still not understanding. The issue is the acceptability of quotes, which then affects whether and how many escapes need to be used. See cdob's post here: http://www.boot-land...?...ost&p=94540

This is the type of sensible and common sense approach to WB syntax that Lancelot and I were wanting and what we had agreed with Peter would be allowed. But now he's got us over a barrel where if we don't use his new syntax he says new functions won't be available. In essence, he's forcing everyone to do what he wants. It's just very mean-spirited and he's only able to implement by going back on a promise. Makes me feel very sad.

I note you simply ignored the common sense post of cdob. That's also very sad because that's where we need to head if WB is going to be in any way friendly for new script developers.

Regards,
Galapo.

#34 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member




  • Amount:

    Team Reboot
  • 12688 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 14 March 2010 - 09:08 PM

You persuaded me!

I give up ANY intentions to make WinBuilder better!

Maybe somebody can use the latest alpha!

If Nuno does not publish as "stable", I'll not do.

Peter

#35 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder


  • Advanced user
  • 13749 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 14 March 2010 - 09:22 PM

Maybe somebody can use the latest alpha!


Good, please start a new thread in the Wishlist:
http://www.boot-land...hp?showforum=99

the current one is for voting.

:lol:

Wonko

#36 amalux

amalux

    Platinum Member


  • Tutorial Writer
  • 2813 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 14 March 2010 - 09:33 PM

We voted.

Discussion is not suited here.

:cheers:

Wonko

I beg to differ, according to topic starter:

We need to decide amongst a significant majority of .script developers (and wb fans) what will the preferred way for writing code.


Before a poll is raised, I would like to hear good arguments either pro or against the use of commas inside strings.


Please participate.

Let's be professionals and express good valid arguments why each method is better in certain situations than others and possibly identify the weak points as well.


:lol:

#37 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member


  • Team Reboot
  • 10452 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 14 March 2010 - 09:49 PM

I see a lot of philosophical talking but few practical examples. Commas and non-commas are necessary. That is a fact and I see that we can't live with or without them.

So far I've also noted that although possible, it is not adequate to use the SET command as a way to launch scripts. I would recommend that in replacement we can agree to use a simpler (human readable) code that goes from this:
Set,MacroTest,"Exec,%scriptfile%,test",PERMANENT

Onto something like this:
[variables]
MacroTest=Exec,%scriptfile%,test


Why? Because it will allow to organize macros around a nice location where people know where to find it and also be compatible with existent scripts and older wb's. The PERMANENT switch is an option but should it really be available?

I think that we need to set boundaries of action for this command. The SET command, for example, should work on a Script level but shouldn't have escalated to affect variables on a Project level.

Sometimes it's a good practice to limit the functionality of a command and this is one of those cases where it would have helped to avoid these problems with non-commas.

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

I need to know which other commands you feel that are affecting your scripting.

Can you please provide more examples for other wb commands?

During this discussion I will also start writing the script test cases to fully test the functionality of each wb command, so I appreciate if you provide more examples that I can use as reference for the type of scripting that you want to see implemented.

Thank you.

#38 amalux

amalux

    Platinum Member


  • Tutorial Writer
  • 2813 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 14 March 2010 - 09:51 PM

Because you see, Peter has our arm behind our back forcing us to use his new quote free syntax. He's already stated new functions and developments will only be available if a developer sticks to his WinBuilderish quote-free syntax etc. So you'll be left behind in developments. He's basically got us over a barrel.

Just trying to understand this complicated issue, is it true that the use of quotes slows down processing (a real issue), seems to me the real issue. Is there a way to keep the use of quotes, limit the use of escapes (my strong preference as well) and still improve processing speed or is it one or the other? How much of a speed increase are we talking about anyway, if minimal then it becomes an unworthy sacrifice (imo).

#39 Lancelot

Lancelot

    Frequent Member


  • .script developer
  • 5013 posts
  • Location:Turkiye/Izmir
  • Interests:*Mechanical stuff and Physics,
    *LiveXP, BartPE, SherpyaXPE,
    *Basketball and Looong Walking,
    *Buying outwear for my girlf (Reason: Girls are stupid about buying bad stuff to make themselves uglier :))
    *Girls (Lyric: Girl,...., You will be a womann, Soon)
    *Answering questions for "Meaning of life",
    *Helping people,

    Kung with LiveXP, Fu with Peter :)
  •  
    Turkey

Posted 14 March 2010 - 09:51 PM

@patsch
This is not done by us.
When we ask questions, Nuno reply with false accusations and when we re-reply his false accusations he again find other things and we again rereply again.
Hence our questions STILL remains unanswered.

Thanks for Nuno.

@Marcus
Truely reason probably well found by you (Nuno's example, ...macro.... ) but not noticed that time. remember you asked somewhere script.project writing escapes.....Guess the rest..... Besides "variable+double quotes including comma" working on 77rc2 :lol:. (macros was not much splitted that time, I can only give example with wb77rc2 but you can understand the rest after checking things)


@Nuno,

I do not want to reply your example syntax in detail since it is out of topic (and totally not related to US). Create a topic asking why the set....." " not work anymore, than you will get answer.
Besides Your example is same with Galapo's initial topic and maybe you can post there and say "I found another unpredictability of winbuilder"
Galapo wrote verrrrry well this development, these actions cause "unpredictability" of winbuilder.
http://www.boot-land...?...t&pid=93787

But to use the optional "Strict" parser which is running much faster, there are stronger rules. And every .script developer can decide voluntarily for the faster method.


Which as a result, this optional became false these days.
The silent update of syntax_rules already proves that.



Winbuilder is turning to have a cryptic syntax for others.
One should learn
a_) syntax rules
b_) cryptic syntax writing
c_) workarounds (we have a set of them)

What Me and Galapo is TRYING to show YOU is this fact is BAD for winbuilder.
We are trying to rescue winbuilder from cryptic to user friendly again.

We NEVER EVER request anywhere for cryptic syntax usage for regular end user.
It is done SILENTLY by updating syntax rules and making some quotes work temporarly to make changes unnoticable.

If it is opposite and your intention is not to allow "cryptic syntax", than write it somewhere so we know that you do not approve this goal. (or maybe you do !)

As written before, you can open a topic and ask whatever you want about our posts. I do not have (and can not understand) wb sourcecodes, as an end user and a frequent tester, I closely know how things starts to change slowly up to Silent syntax update and I can easly answer your questions.

Rest of comments well written by Galapo above

#40 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder


  • Advanced user
  • 13749 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 14 March 2010 - 10:00 PM

I beg to differ, according to topic starter:


Topic starter, besides being the Owner and Admin of the board, is clearly confused at the moment.

He created himself this section called "Vote!" EXACTLY to have in here ONLY Polls and Opinions:
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=2559

He created himself a topic here asking for opinions.

He had them.

Discussion/making him understand what the problem is (something he has been told some 54.7 times last time I counted them), does not belong here.

But of course you are perfectly free to disagree and differ. :cheers:

However, just for the record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion
http://en.wikipedia....amp;redirect=no
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Conversation

I hope you see the difference between gathering opinions and discussing them.

While I am at it, I am starting a 15 hours silence, in sign of protest, hoping that it will interpreted, rightfully as:
http://en.wikipedia....Awkward_silence
and as a direct consequence of the minimal responses were given, not here, but all over the Board, in the proper places where proper requests were properly posted and opened to a proper discussion.

:lol:

Wonko

#41 Lancelot

Lancelot

    Frequent Member


  • .script developer
  • 5013 posts
  • Location:Turkiye/Izmir
  • Interests:*Mechanical stuff and Physics,
    *LiveXP, BartPE, SherpyaXPE,
    *Basketball and Looong Walking,
    *Buying outwear for my girlf (Reason: Girls are stupid about buying bad stuff to make themselves uglier :))
    *Girls (Lyric: Girl,...., You will be a womann, Soon)
    *Answering questions for "Meaning of life",
    *Helping people,

    Kung with LiveXP, Fu with Peter :)
  •  
    Turkey

Posted 14 March 2010 - 10:07 PM

Is there a way to keep the use of quotes, limit the use of escapes (my strong preference as well) and still improve processing speed or is it one or the other?

Hi amalux,
It was written many times before (after <074 , about 2 years) using escapes is optional. As a result one can use cryptic to speed up and other can use user friendly syntax.

After recent "SILENT UPDATE" to syntax rule (*rule 3)

it states there is only 1 way now and it is cryptic sytax. And this is what we raise our voice these days.

Topic title is wrong, and shows Nuno does not read our posts carelfully.

It should be:
Quotes vs Escapes
or
Easy syntax vs Cryptic Syntax
or
Jaclaz knows better :lol:.

#42 amalux

amalux

    Platinum Member


  • Tutorial Writer
  • 2813 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 14 March 2010 - 10:16 PM

While I am at it, I am starting a 15 hours silence, in sign of protest

Enjoy the silence :cheers:

Regardless of how many mis-steps in the past, this is an important topic and this is the first thread where open, honest, respectful (for the most part) discussion has yielded some real answers. The spirit of the topic (despite it's improper placement) is to discuss the issue until our questions are voiced and, hopefully, answered clearly. I think we should continue towards this goal for a more informed, final vote.

:lol:

#43 amalux

amalux

    Platinum Member


  • Tutorial Writer
  • 2813 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 14 March 2010 - 10:26 PM

After recent "SILENT UPDATE" to syntax rule (*rule 3)

it states there is only 1 way now and it is cryptic sytax. And this is what we raise our voice these days.

OK, I understand (I think); do you, like Galapo, have an issue with this being optional? Do you know if it's true that the only way to increase processing speed is with the new strict rules? How much speed increase, say a 30 minute build would now take ?? minutes with new rules (to anyone who knows).

#44 Lancelot

Lancelot

    Frequent Member


  • .script developer
  • 5013 posts
  • Location:Turkiye/Izmir
  • Interests:*Mechanical stuff and Physics,
    *LiveXP, BartPE, SherpyaXPE,
    *Basketball and Looong Walking,
    *Buying outwear for my girlf (Reason: Girls are stupid about buying bad stuff to make themselves uglier :))
    *Girls (Lyric: Girl,...., You will be a womann, Soon)
    *Answering questions for "Meaning of life",
    *Helping people,

    Kung with LiveXP, Fu with Peter :)
  •  
    Turkey

Posted 14 March 2010 - 10:43 PM

OK, I understand (I think); do you, like Galapo, have an issue with this being optional?

Absolutely not.
It was written many times on public topics by me and Galapo we are supporting optional.
Besides since psc declared it is "optional" manny times publickly on many topics, we even supported him for his goal.
In Return here we are.

Do you know if it's true that the only way to increase processing speed is with the new strict rules?

I did not test, and it is hard for me to test (I can not predict how much windows cache mechanism effective). By trusting what psc wrote in past, there should be.
Besides following psc's advices for a long while I removed unneccasary quotes from many scripts without touching readibility.

Giving example:

I changed following
RegWrite,&#34;HKLM&#34;,0x3,&#34;WB-software\Classes\CLSID\{083863F1-70DE

-11d0-BD40-00A0C911CE86}\Instance\{07167665-5011-11CF-BF33-00AA0055595A}&#34;,

&#34;FilterData&#34;,&#34;02&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;20&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;01&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,

&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;30&#34;,&#34;70&#34;,&#34;69&#34;,&#34;33&#34;,&#34;02&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;01&#34;,

&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;30&#34;,&#34;74&#34;,&#34;79&#34;,&#34;33&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,

&#34;38&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;48&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;76&#34;,&#34;69&#34;,&#34;64&#34;,&#34;73&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;10&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;80&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,

&#34;aa&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;38&#34;,&#34;9b&#34;,&#34;71&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;,&#34;00&#34;
to
RegWrite,HKLM,0x3,WB-software\Classes\CLSID\{083863F1-70DE-11d0-BD40

-00A0C911CE86}\Instance\{70E102B0-5556-11CE-97C0-00AA0055595A},FilterData,

02,00,00,00,00,00,40,00,01,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,30,70,6

9,33,02,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,01,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,30,74,79,33,00,

0

0,00,00,38,00,00,00,48,00,00,00,76,69,64,73,00,00,10,00,80,00,00,aa,00,38,9b,71,

0

0,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00

Besides I left quotes in following to make it easly readable.
RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,&#34;Tmp_software\Microsoft\DirectPlay\Service Providers\

Internet TCP/IP Connection For DirectPlay&#34;,DescriptionW,

&#34;Internet TCP/IP Connection For DirectPlay&#34;

and did not change to
RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,Tmp_software\Microsoft\DirectPlay\Service#$sProviders\

Internet#$sTCP/IP#$sConnection#$sFor#$sDirectPlay,DescriptionW,Internet#$s

TCP/IP#$sConnection#$sFor#$sDirectPlay

Above are simple examples to easly show the picture.

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.

#45 patsch

patsch

    Silver Member


  • Advanced user
  • 785 posts
  •  
    Germany

Posted 14 March 2010 - 10:53 PM

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.

omg ... Amalux asked a simple question (increasing speed) and you answered that you did not test ... why are you repeating all the stuff not related to the question over and over again (or in your lovely word "many many many many ...")?
- Peter already said that he will not spent more time in making winbuilder better in that way he did it
- Nuno writes test routines
- Amalux only asked if there is a way to speedup but not to make syntax more complicated
why are you repeating the not correlated stuff again and again? Do you like it to be so destructive?

#46 amalux

amalux

    Platinum Member


  • Tutorial Writer
  • 2813 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 14 March 2010 - 10:58 PM

I agree fully with your above examples and positions, I guess the the real question is, can we take Peter at his word that this new strict syntax requirement will be optional? This isn't helped by:

You persuaded me!

I give up ANY intentions to make WinBuilder better!

Maybe somebody can use the latest alpha!

If Nuno does not publish as "stable", I'll not do.

Peter

So, does this mean discussion is over, new strict syntax requirements will NOT be implemented? Or is this just leaving it up to Nuno to decide?


edit: Sorry patsch, didn't see you there :cheers: , these are very important issues and we need to work them out, no one is trying to be 'destructive', just trying to get some answers.


:lol:

#47 Lancelot

Lancelot

    Frequent Member


  • .script developer
  • 5013 posts
  • Location:Turkiye/Izmir
  • Interests:*Mechanical stuff and Physics,
    *LiveXP, BartPE, SherpyaXPE,
    *Basketball and Looong Walking,
    *Buying outwear for my girlf (Reason: Girls are stupid about buying bad stuff to make themselves uglier :))
    *Girls (Lyric: Girl,...., You will be a womann, Soon)
    *Answering questions for "Meaning of life",
    *Helping people,

    Kung with LiveXP, Fu with Peter :)
  •  
    Turkey

Posted 14 March 2010 - 11:09 PM

I agree fully with your above examples and positions,

thanks, you may notice both Galapo and Me are very thankfull to you for reading what we are writing, as a result understanding our concerns.

I guess the the real question is, can we take Peter at his word that this new strict syntax requirement will be optional?

As seen from the replies these days, psc do not comment.
Besides silent update already proves psc taking his public word for optionallity back and having cryptic syntax as default (only) (not optional).

So, does this mean discussion is over, new strict syntax requirements will NOT be implemented? Or is this just leaving it up to Nuno to decide?

Well, from first day we asked single question publickly to development (Nuno + psc) and after we realize psc's silent update we directly asked to Nuno.

We never get an answer to our question from Nuno. (Does Nuno approve crpytic syntax ?)

Well, at current point, we can not know what is being discussed behind doors.
We made our comments public, open to everyone, without silent plans and without unrelevant posts.
At least now we know one more individual also understands our concerns. Thanks.

#48 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member


  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 14 March 2010 - 11:14 PM

So, does this mean discussion is over, new strict syntax requirements will NOT be implemented? Or is this just leaving it up to Nuno to decide?

I think it means, that Peter as WB developer is over.

:lol:

#49 amalux

amalux

    Platinum Member


  • Tutorial Writer
  • 2813 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 14 March 2010 - 11:21 PM

I think it means, that Peter as WB developer is over.

:lol:

Well, I hope not, I've said before and will say now, the overall improvement of winbuilder has been wonderful and a large part of the credit goes to Peter. I thank him for his hard work and many contributions to this great project! I just hope that whoever continues development puts a bit more effort into communication skills.


:cheers:

#50 Galapo

Galapo

    Platinum Member


  • .script developer
  • 3841 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 14 March 2010 - 11:29 PM

I give up ANY intentions to make WinBuilder better!

Hi Peter,

I fail to see why it is an either-or option.

Why can't we have a better WB with syntax which uses quotes and minimal use of escapes?

Why is a WB which has the enhanced syntax method (with new functions etc) which does not use quotes and increases everyday need for using escapes supposedly better?

Why can't we have a better WB with better syntax?

Regards,
Galapo.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users