inline HP PPL support is definitively a good idea. Also if the calc ever supports ASM maybe Source could allow inline ASM opcodes?

My thoughts exactly.

I am proud to present to you for loops! They're very powerful in Source.

All fors in Source are for-each loops. The kind of for you're used to looks like this:

@export
function test1() {
   for i in range(1,10) {
      print(i)
   }
}

A backwards for loop needs some special stuff done to it as of now; expect this to change:

@export
function test2() {
   @downloop
   for i in range(10,1,-1) {
      print(i)
   }
}

A traditional for-each loop is as so:

@export
function test3() {
   local a = [5,8,7,3]
   for v in a {
      print(v)
   }
}

Each loop, v becomes the next element of a.

You can get both the index and the element it references with the pairs() function of a list:

@export
function test4() {
   local a = [5,8,7,3]
   for i,v in a.pairs() {
      print(i~" "~v)
   }
}

Finally, you can simply have your own iterator functions. Just use the iterator keyword:

@export
function test5() {
   local a = [5,8,7,3]
   for newv in myOwnIter(a) {
      print(newv)
   }
}

iterator myOwnIter(a as list) as int {
   for v in a {
      return (v as int) + 1
   }
}

Note that the above code can also be written as:

@export
function test5() {
local a as list = [5,8,7,3]
for newv in a.myOwnIter() {
print(newv)
}
}

iterator list.myOwnIter(a as list) as int {
for v in a {
return (v as int) + 1
}
}


Can you have type parameters of a rank higher than 1? That always bugged me in Java.

Awesome, hopefully there is enough documentation for people to use the language in the future.

Also I was always worried about For loops, because I know some languages seem to try very hard at making them weird. Even HP PPL is borderline with its FROM TO STEP DO syntax. Casio BASIC is the worst, I think, because it even inverts stuff. Instead of For(A,1,7,2) you have to write For 1->A To 7 Step 2 which is really weird.

Hello everyone! It's been a while.

First of all, I updated the original post. It's a lot better now.

Second of all, I'm currently at work rewriting Source from scratch. I'm also contemplating renaming Source (I've got a lot of people saying the name is bad; it kind of is). What do you think?

The drone.io will still have Source version 1 builds if you want them.