Oh sorry ignore my last post. Bob
On Dec 23, 2011, at 6:50 PM, dunb...@aol.com wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
