The Dictionary entry for 'local' has this Example: -- To make a numbered list of variables: repeat with x=1 to 20 do "local tVar_" & x & "; put empty into tVar_" & x end repeat
Which 'apparently' runs fine if you copy and paste it into the msg box. For the purposes of this discussion and so we can see what's going on I'm going to remix that to: repeat with x=1 to 20 do "local tVar_" & x do "put x*x into tVar_" & x end repeat As Hermann pointed out in a previous thread, if you use Strict Compilation mode, to access any of those variables you can't: put tVar_5 into msg because when you apply the changes you get an error because LC doesn't know tVar_5 has been declared in <do>. To work around this EVERY SINGLE TIME you have to refer to ANY variable created by <do> you have to hide it in another <do>: do "put tVar_5 into msg" --making <do> even slower (time to learn about arrays;-) BUT, assuming you are severely allergic to arrays and simply must use <do>, then what is the point of the <local> statement? If you accidentally in the final statement wrote: do "put tBar_5 into msg" --Bar not Var Strict Mode will NOT pick this up as all <do> variables are basically hidden. Moving right along, for those Slack Moders, if you run the same statements: repeat with x=1 to 20 do "local tVar_" & x do "put x*x into tVar_" & x end repeat put tVar_5 into msg --not hidden in <do> For reasons I do NOT understand, you get a runtime error: line: do "local tVar_" & x hint: local tVar_5 If you remove/comment the line: do "local tVar_" & x everything will then run fine - reinforcing your decision to choose Slack Mode because declaring vars is so 3GL ;-) So long story short; contrary to the example, it would seem to be counter-productive to use <local> within a <do> statement. _______________________________________________ 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
