> On 6 Jun 2016, at 06:33, Monte Goulding wrote:
>
> Hmm… certainly an interesting idea:
>
> put 1,2,3 into tVar
> myAdd 5, item 3 of tVar
>
> command myAdd pToAdd, @xAddTo
> put pToAdd+xAddTo into xAddTo
> end myAdd
>
> tVar = 1,2,8
>
> I doubt we should get our hopes up Dar ;-)
>
> Of c
> On 6 Jun 2016, at 3:15 PM, Dar Scott wrote:
>
> The problem is more general than the use of any and random(). It applies to
> functions with side effects.
>
> And if the compiler is allowed to combine like-looking expressions (as in
> your example), it should prove that there can be no s
The problem is more general than the use of any and random(). It applies to
functions with side effects.
And if the compiler is allowed to combine like-looking expressions (as in your
example), it should prove that there can be no side effects.
One solution would be to allow the building o
> On 6 Jun 2016, at 12:47 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:
>
> Turns out an additional note was needed to cover "any".
I am less concerned about the quirky behavior of any and random chunks
considering it is easy to work around it than I am about the re-evaluation of
the chunk expression which could be
On 06/05/2016 05:04 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
I suspect not. I didn't realise one was open ;-)
Turns out an additional note was needed to cover "any".
http://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=7919
http://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=17795
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
On 06/05/2016 05:00 PM, Dar Scott wrote:
I missed Mark's comment. Sorry about poking at this while it was actually
understood.
Actually, I thought you came up with some very interesting nuances.
These should make it into the test suite.
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
___
I suspect not. I didn't realise one was open ;-)
Sent from my iPhone
> On 6 Jun 2016, at 9:52 AM, Mark Wieder wrote:
>
> There are two bug reports on this already. Do you need a third?
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Pleas
> On Jun 5, 2016, at 5:52 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:
>
> Yes, I believe that's the gist of LCMark's comment in the bug report.
Ah, looks like they have it on the run.
I missed Mark's comment. Sorry about poking at this while it was actually
understood.
Dar
On 06/05/2016 04:03 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
I’ve taken a little look into it and yes it does appear the chunk is being
evaluated twice:
Yes, I believe that's the gist of LCMark's comment in the bug report.
Please submit a bug report so we can look into it further...
There are two bug repo
> On 6 Jun 2016, at 6:06 AM, d...@swcp.com wrote:
>
> I suspect that random(16) is being evaluated twice based on a first glance
> at the pattern.
I’ve taken a little look into it and yes it does appear the chunk is being
evaluated twice:
Add left to right
- get value to add by and evaluat
> On Jun 5, 2016, at 2:26 PM, [-hh] wrote:
>
> And this, not this much funny, creates a CRASH (showing "inf"):
> on mouseUp
> put "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16" into myVar
> repeat 1000
>add 1 to item (any item of myVar) of myVar
> end repeat
> put myVar into fld 1
> end mouse
Dar Scott wrote
> on mouseUp
>put "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16" into myVar
>repeat 1000
> add zero to any item of myVar
>end repeat
>put myVar
> end mouseUp
Your example is really convincing, nothing to say more.
This introduces, still funny, some variation:
on m
on mouseUp
put "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16" into myVar
repeat 1000
add zero to any item of myVar
end repeat
put myVar
end mouseUp
> On Jun 5, 2016, at 2:06 PM, d...@swcp.com wrote:
>
> Just for fun:
>
> on mouseUp
> put LF into newLine
> put 0 into sRandomCount
13 matches
Mail list logo
