On 05/27/2011 08:54 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
Well we can all at least be thankful that it is not how a woman would design a
language either. Can you imagine having to hint at something and then the
computer has to figure out what you really meant? ;-)
Nothing like a bit of sexual stereotyping.
Well we can all at least be thankful that it is not how a woman would design a
language either. Can you imagine having to hint at something and then the
computer has to figure out what you really meant? ;-)
send "there sure are a lot of numbers around here not doing anything right now"
to sum
Devin Asay wrote:
On May 27, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Todd Geist wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
For example, you can call the numToChar function using either of these two
forms:
numToChar(128)
the numToChar of 128
Meanwhile, the sum function c
On May 27, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> Todd Geist wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>>> For example, you can call the numToChar function using either of these two
>>> forms:
>>>
>>> numToChar(128)
>>> the numToChar of 128
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, the su
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Richard Gaskin
wrote:
>
> But for myself the problem is easily worked around: I usually just ignore
> the capability of using property syntax for function calls.
>
> I find it much clearer to read code in which functions are called using
> function syntax and prop
Todd Geist wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
For example, you can call the numToChar function using either of these two
forms:
numToChar(128)
the numToChar of 128
Meanwhile, the sum function can only be called using function syntax:
sum(1,2,3) -- works
the sum
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Richard Gaskin
wrote:
> For example, you can call the numToChar function using either of these two
> forms:
>
> numToChar(128)
> the numToChar of 128
>
> Meanwhile, the sum function can only be called using function syntax:
>
> sum(1,2,3) -- works
> the sum of
Todd Geist wrote:
I am confused by an inconsistency I am seeing. I think it points to
something I missing about object names and references.
Using the Object Inspector you can set the name of a card, for example, to
"MyCardName"
But when you retrieve the name of the object in line of code you
thank you!
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Nonsanity wrote:
> Try:get the short name of this card
>
> ~ Chris Innanen
> ~ Nonsanity
>
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Todd Geist >wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am confused by an inconsistency I am seeing. I think it points to
> > some
use the short name of the object.
name button "Button"
short name "Button"
long namebutton "Button" of card id 1002 of stack "Untitled 1"
On 27 May 2011 07:17, Todd Geist wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am confused by an inconsistency I am seeing. I think it points to
> somet
Try:get the short name of this card
~ Chris Innanen
~ Nonsanity
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Todd Geist wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am confused by an inconsistency I am seeing. I think it points to
> something I missing about object names and references.
>
> Using the Object Inspector you
Hello,
I am confused by an inconsistency I am seeing. I think it points to
something I missing about object names and references.
Using the Object Inspector you can set the name of a card, for example, to
"MyCardName"
But when you retrieve the name of the object in line of code you get back
the
12 matches
Mail list logo
