Of course.
I have overdone the "do" construction by not including the whole statement in quotes. I am so used to having to break out literals from variables, reassembling them meticulously into a single line, that I missed this very expected result. Thanks... Craig -----Original Message----- From: Bob Sneidar <b...@twft.com> To: How to use LiveCode <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> Sent: Fri, Dec 23, 2011 1:20 pm Subject: Re: How do you do it?? Hmmm lemme follow this as pseudo code: when the mouse is clicked put "AA" and a carriage return and "BB" into the variable "it" on the first pass of a repeat loop, try to do the command put followed by the word "it" followed by the contents of the variable "it" (it's two lines you know) followed by into "temp1". The statement you are trying to "do" will look like this: do put AA BB into temp1 Well you see what went wrong don't you? The do command does not know what to do with what comes after AA. It cannot even compile it. This is why it is a MUCH better idea to put your command into a variable, and then do the variable. You could then have stepped through the code and seen what the DO command looked like before you tried to "do" it. It may seem like wisdom at first to try to mash all the code into one compact statement, but there is no gain in performance, and there is a HUGE downside of not being able to debug it. Try this instead: > on mouseUp > get "AA" & return & "BB" > -- get "AA" > repeat with y = 1 to 2 > put "put" && line y of it && "into temp" & y into theCommand > do theCommand > end repeat > answer temp1 & comma & temp2 > end mouseUp You will get "AA,BB" Bob On Dec 23, 2011, at 1:43 PM, dunb...@aol.com wrote: > > > Why do LC (and HC for that matter) fail to process multi-line variables when using "do"? > > > If the variable "it" contains one line, the "do" construction > works fine, making numbered temp variables as needed. But if I try the > routine with a multi-line "it", the handler > will not compile. > LC complains as: execution error at line 5 (do: error in source expression) near "put AA", char 1 > HC complains as well, that it cannot understand "BB". > > > > It seems that the routine breaks simply because of the other lines, that is, > the next line in "it" is not understandable by the parser. I wonder why it bothers to look there. > > > > Don't tell me I need two levels of "do": (do "do put...) Just kidding, that fails also. > > > Just asking. > > > Craig Newman > > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
