On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Robert Sneidar wrote:
> I find frustration is my worst enemy when trying to debug a difficult bit
> of code. Taking a deep breath and going about things systematically helps
> me a lot.
>
> Absolutely. Whether explicitVars is Off or On, typos are the least of my
Alternately you can "put the variableNames" at the end of a misbehaving script
to see if there are similarly spelled variables. One leg is both the same. The
salient point here is that there are lots of ways to skin this cat. Part of the
skillset of debugging is to develop ways to reveal differe
I know everyone has their preference, and at the moment I'm trying to ween
myself onto explicitVars for a big project, but I have never understood the
argument that you can't *see* these spelling errors. As soon as a script
doesn't behave, in goes a breakpoint, and you stop inside the script and
'i
I just use Jacque's scriptpaint (see previous thread), now apparently built
into lcStackBrowser. No more typos for variable names. Love it.
-- Peter
Peter M. Brigham
pmb...@gmail.com
http://home.comcast.net/~pmbrig
On Nov 27, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Peter Haworth wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:5
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Ben Rubinstein wrote:
> But this sort of thing is exactly why I like explicitVars/Variable
> Checking/Strict Compilation Mode (LiveCode's confusing three names for the
> same thing applied in subtly different ways).
+1
Pete
_
I didn't use my eyes, I used logic. I thought I would try something new. ;-)
But seriously, after looking at the output of the first part of the script it
was easy to determine that all that was functioning as expected, so the only
thing left was his content comparison. Something had to be wrong
On 27/11/2012 20:23, Paul Dupuis wrote:
Bob, Thank you. I clearly need a new set of eyes!
I'm very impressed with Bob's eyes - I certainly couldn't see it!
But this sort of thing is exactly why I like explicitVars/Variable
Checking/Strict Compilation Mode (LiveCode's confusing three names for
Paul,
Because in the last line you're writing tExpectedSouceName instead of
tExpectedSourceName. An "r" is missing.
--
Best regards,
Mark Schonewille
Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer
KvK: 50277553
Bob,
Thank you. I clearly need a new set of eyes!
On 11/27/2012 3:15 PM, Robert Sneidar wrote:
> BTW GLX2 would have helped here with it's clairvoyance feature. Remo also has
> this feature. Very handy to have GLX2 or Remo complete your variable and
> command/function names for you.
>
> Bob
>
BTW GLX2 would have helped here with it's clairvoyance feature. Remo also has
this feature. Very handy to have GLX2 or Remo complete your variable and
command/function names for you.
Bob
On Nov 27, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Paul Dupuis wrote:
> put (tActualSourceName = tExpectedSouceName) afte
Because you misspelled tExpectedSourceName
Bob
On Nov 27, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Paul Dupuis wrote:
> put (tActualSourceName = tExpectedSouceName) after msg
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscr
Using LC 5.0.2, I have a really weird string comparison error occurring.
The following code:
put length(tActualSourceName),length(tExpectedSourceName)&cr after msg
repeat with i=1 to the number of characters in tActualSourceName
if char i of tActualSourceName is not char i of
t
12 matches
Mail list logo
