0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
How do you guys feel about that syntax?
.Shell <whatever>
Quote from: Runer112 on July 28, 2013, 02:52:49 pmHow do you guys feel about that syntax?I like the idea of having one token for everyone and using letters to see who is who, but the → is a bit confusing according to me. Why not parentheses instead, like .THING() for default, .THING(I) for Ion, etc ? Or if you want to use the →, why not .M→THING instead of .THING→M ?
I was hoping for something like on line 2 :Code: [Select].Shell <whatever>Also what about the other features I suggested (build constants) ?
And I'm not sure what the purpose of the "build constants" would be. The calculator model and related hardware information aren't constant, they depend on whatever calculator runs the program. Unless you meant including the specs of the actual calculator building the program, but I can't think of how that would be useful. The compiled code should be the same regardless of which model calculator compiled it.
Quote from: Hayleia on July 28, 2013, 02:55:29 pmQuote from: Runer112 on July 28, 2013, 02:52:49 pmHow do you guys feel about that syntax?I like the idea of having one token for everyone and using letters to see who is who, but the → is a bit confusing according to me. Why not parentheses instead, like .THING() for default, .THING(I) for Ion, etc ? Or if you want to use the →, why not .M→THING instead of .THING→M ?The idea was that you're "storing" the compiled data into the target variable type. Does that win you over at all? I find the parentheses method confusing myself because it suggests to me that the file is some massive routine with input arguments, and I mentioned why I like the store approach in the order first suggested.If you still aren't a big fan of the original syntax suggestion, it can certainly be changed. It would be good to hear input from a few others before any kind of decisions are made.