Which proves the point that it isn't as easy as you first made out. As you say, cracking the GLX2 code is probably the easiest route to take and I'd be surprise if that code wasn't developed over a long period of time of 'discovering' odd edge cases cropping up here and there, that Jerry never envisage in a single session of coding.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 5:18 AM, Bob Sneidar <bobsnei...@iotecdigital.com> wrote: > If you remove the asterisks, you would fail to find any code that uses the > variable. Only lines containing *JUST* the variable name would be found, > which wouldn’t work. You could add code to analyze the line by replacing > “(“ and “) with space, then filter for “*” && variableName && “*”. Words at > the end of the line would not be found however, so you would have to also > filter for “*” && variableName. > > Bob S > > > > On Jul 1, 2015, at 23:09 , Kay C Lan <lan.kc.macm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Bob, I think you would need to remove the astrisks otherwise if you have > > single letter variables (many use them as counters in repeat loops) or > > words that may appear in other words - lStart, lStartSearch - you could > > easy miss some. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Bob Sneidar <bobsnei...@iotecdigital.com > > > > wrote: > > > >> Seems you could write a handler to do it pretty easily. > >> > >> <pseudocode> > >> — get stack script > >> — find “local “ > >> — get word 2 of found line > >> — filter with “*” & word 2 of found line & “*” > >> — count number of lines. if only 1 then delete that line > >> — get list of cards > >> — repeat for every card > >> — get card script > >> — what I just said > >> — get list of objects on card > >> — repeat for every object on card > >> — get script of object > >> — do I have to repeat myself again?? > >> </pseudocode> > >> > >> It might be a little more complicated if you have multiple local > variable > >> declarations, but not much. > >> > >> Bob S > >> > >> > >>> On Jul 1, 2015, at 06:44 , Tiemo Hollmann TB <toolb...@kestner.de> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> I am using the strict compilation mode. When working over longer time > on > >> a > >>> project it regularly happens that I have orphaned local variable > >>> declarations. > >>> > >>> Actually they don't hurt, but I like to keep my code clean and wonder > if > >>> there is any hidden feature, which checks for not any more needed local > >>> declarations (beside scripting a check myself)? > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>> Tiemo > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
