Ok, so just have them as separate statements if possible?  (with the least likely outermost so it runs through less checks)
Coll, I'll just do that

(what I'm working on is adding movable objects to DS and I'm trying to make sure the getKeys and such don't mess with it

One thing I would really love is to have some sort of global variable that can be used in an expression to represent the current location the PC is at, so that you could tell exactly where in the program memory you were.  This would mean you could make overlapping functions that HHS inner would do the function, the outer would simply return value of the PC at the beginning of the function.  This would be very, very useful for implementing crude OOP and Proc arrays.

Can you add a For() loop that counts down?  (Like a 16 bit djnz)  Maybe For()^r ?  That would be very useful. 
EDIT: I know there is DS<(), but that is a little bit different.

In extension to this, would it be possible to add a command that allows you to do something like For()^r except it would check the two arguments, and if the first was larger than the second, it would count down instead of up.

Quote from: graphmastur on June 18, 2011, 09:16:25 pm

Quote from: ralphdspam on June 16, 2011, 11:23:59 pm

Can you add a For() loop that counts down?  (Like a 16 bit djnz)  Maybe For()^r ?  That would be very useful. 
EDIT: I know there is DS<(), but that is a little bit different.

In extension to this, would it be possible to add a command that allows you to do something like For()^r except it would check the two arguments, and if the first was larger than the second, it would count down instead of up.

I'm not sure if I'm right, so please correct me if not:

Isn't that the same thing as For(10,2,-1)? Or this can't be done?

I'm pretty sure that can be done (I know it can in basic, well, assuming you include a variable in there) I was just thinking of having it do it automatically without the negative one.  Like if it was For(A,10,2)^r it would count down, but For(A,2,10)^r would count up.

Token Support: already rejected
Those For Loops:  Why not just come up with your own Repeat or While loops?

Abs([num_of_Loops+1])
While -1 -> [var]
   .Code
   [var]
End
Which is a simple template that can be easily modded to fit your application-specific restraints.

Remove the scope restrictions on commands? I was just working on a pretty beastly optimization using the value returned by Copy() in the middle of a line, but Axe won't let me.

Also, do you think the /10 "optimization" should be removed? It results in smaller code, but also much slower code.

The scope restriction I might remove for that command, the main reason I have it is because I don't want it used inline or else that implies that it has a defined return value (which is what you're trying to do) yet its still possible it could change in the future for a better optimization or something.  I don't think the Copy() command could possibly get more optimized though, but I'd at least have to change the documentation about it to describe the return value and also decapitalize the "C".

For division by 10, I figure that if you're dividing by a constant 10 you're most likely not using the division for speed critical math and are probably doing something with digits, which don't need to be fast generally.  If speed was really critical, you should be using one of the other auto-ops for division or just use /(10) instead of /10.

Yeah, the copy and fill commands definitely have calculable, consistent return values. And I don't think the routines could possibly be optimized any more, so these values probably won't change. Although if I could have it my way, I would completely remove scope restrictions. I often find myself seeing how my code could be more optimized with insane stuff like inline If statements.

Speaking of which... feature request: inline If statements? Many (most?) computer languages have them, so why not bring them to Axe?


Also, I don't think you need to change the capitalization of Copy() or Fill(). Other commands, like GetCalc() for instance, can be used inline but are capitalized. I think routines used solely for their return value should not be capitalized, but other commands should.

What are inline if statements?

I think it's like:

EndIf A>4