Use of Different Function Format

[Jos]

I realy think you are from an other world, or you are using special lexer !!

If I type this

AutoIt.standards()

in SciTE I see clearly on other visual effect than this "AutoITstandards"

This behavior is, like Valik stated, coded to color the COM standard.

The Lexer doesn't care about the first part, but when whatever.something.something is encountered the "something"'s are considered COM notations.

I wouldn't want to see dots in Functions/Variables or whatever else .. much too complex to make that change to the Lexer and for me it doesn't add to make it any more readable then what it is today.

my 2 cents..

Edited June 2, 2006 by JdeB

[JSThePatriot]

@JS

I am sorry to say that it is not the case. Try to make a function using a DOT.

You can"t run the script. At least I can't.

@Valik

What do I like discussing with you

Whenever I think he is not going to reply on this one, your replies get longer and longer. lol

Ofcourse this whole discussion is subjective, and that is what it will erver be.

That is infact inherent to any standards defined !!

I realy think you are from an other world, or you are using special lexer !!

If I type this

AutoIt.standards()

in SciTE I see clearly on other visual effect than this "AutoITstandards"

It is not wether it is supported now or not. That is besides the point at this moment in time.

Again this is partly besides the point. Most UDF's written are not in compliance with this naming converion.

This if you scan along those ones you will never see what you are looking for.

When the dot syntax is support, coders will see immediately the visual effect of it (if supported by the lexer). And this will be much more stimulating to comply with. What I see with my eyes, will be much faster absorbed, than what I have read somewhere. And that goes for a lot of people (in fact for all of them).

I respect that. But why not open the door for putting a dot in a function, for at least those what to put it there.

And I can assure you AutoIT will not be the first language that does it.

Have a nice weekend.

Saying when the . syntax is supported that coders will see that you can name things in a certain way and will do it is a logical fallacy. That would be the same as if we had . support, but not _ and someone made that argument. It is invalid. Just because you support something doesnt mean everyone will see the light. I am not saying that it would help or wouldnt. It very well may help especially those that are used to such a notation. Every language I have used doesnt really use .'s for much of anything unless it is COM related. I dont have a very wide language base, but except from MS languages I havent used a . in a function call.

Again my 2 cents... I think I may have a dollar by now haha

JS

[Valik]

ptrex, 80% or more of the users of AutoIt only know the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground because their ass smells like shit. Present them with a hole that smells like shit and they will have a befuddled look on their face. So your argument that "if you build it they will come" is just dead wrong. People who don't know about programming aren't going to look at a period and say, "hey, that's an excellent delimiter to organize my functions", they are going to say, "what the hell is with the stupid dot everywhere?" Not only that, people who do know about programming are going to say, "what the hell is that period doing everywhere when this language doesn't support objects?" A period is used primarily for a member-access operator, not a namespace resolution operator. Your suggestion is going to confuse far more people and make the situation worse than it is now.

[ptrex]

@Valik

users of AutoIt only know the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground because their ass smells like shit.

This is a good one, I wil have to rememder this one definitely. lol

So your argument that "if you build it they will come" is just dead wrong

Again totally wrong perception of you valik.

The proof is just given, by this AutoIT forum itself. People are like monkeys if the see something they replicate bahaviour.

This is the proof when the "AutoIT" Tags

and

where introduced in this forum to visually persent the code as in SciTE.

Suddenly everyone starts using it !!

What's there more to say that the Visual impact is working !!

Now it's again your turn.

I still have a lot of cents left

Edited June 3, 2006 by ptrex

[ptrex]

@JdeB

I wouldn't want to see dots in Functions/Variables or whatever else .. much too complex to make that change to the Lexer

There is nothing needed to change on the lexer, that't the good news. I am happy as it is right now.

The only thing needed to change that it is allowed to used DOTS in a funtion name.

All the rest everything can remain the same.

JdeB am sad to see that you are running a compaign against this.

Let me explain.

I am using BaaN script on a regular basis.

You above anyone else knows that BaaN was (and still is) world famous for it good concepts.

Well the BaaN script compiler doen't make any protest when using a DOT serapated function name !!

Are you saying that the BaaN developers and scripters are using "BEEP" software

(BTW SciTE has a BaaN lexer.)

You disappoint me in this.

Groeten van een buur.

[MHz]

BaaN doing a song. Along with 951 other languages doing it too. Along with AutoIt also .

[ptrex]

BaaN doing a song. Along with 951 other languages doing it too. Along with AutoIt also .

@MHz

That's a nice one !! I'll have to remember it, great !!

[Valik]

The proof is just given, by this AutoIT forum itself. People are like monkeys if the see something they replicate bahaviour.

This is the proof when the "AutoIT" Tags

and

where introduced in this forum to visually persent the code as in SciTE.

Suddenly everyone starts using it !!

What's there more to say that the Visual impact is working !!/quote]You're comparing apples to horses. I see no correlation between people using the autoit tag and their ability to emulate well written code. As stated previously, a precedent has been set, AutoIt has a convention in place. How many people use it already? I believe that all the standard library files can pass Au3Check's most strict settings but most of the code on this forum doesn't even declare variables with Local/Global/Dim.

I grow tired of this argument. Most of your points are based on misconceptions where-as my points are based on experience and years of observation.

[Jos]

@JdeB

There is nothing needed to change on the lexer, that't the good news. I am happy as it is right now.

I will have to change it because it will assign the wrong lexer-status to the syntax, since these values are used in LUA to test.

JdeB am sad to see that you are running a compaign against this.

Let me explain.

I am using BaaN script on a regular basis.

You above anyone else knows that BaaN was (and still is) world famous for it good concepts.

Well the BaaN script compiler doesnt make any protest when using a DOT separated function name !!

Are you saying that the BaaN developers and scripters are using "BEEP" software

(BTW SciTE has a BaaN lexer.)

You disappoint me in this.

Groeten van een buur.

campaign /disappointed? strong words .......

Baan as in the Dutch company that nearly went broke ? I have seen the lexer code. looked at many examples when creating the AutoIt3 lexer for SciTE.

As far as I am concerned its just not worth the effort of making a total overhaul of Autoit's various lexers just to support a dot. These kind of decisions need to be made at design time and then stick with it ....

Don't understand why it would be disappointing when somebody doesn't agree.. even when he speaks the same languages... toch ????

Met de vriendelijke groeten.....

Edited June 3, 2006 by JdeB

[ptrex]

@Valik

This is my last reply as well.

Whenever you run out of arguments, you state this "You're comparing apples to horses".

I am not comparing apples an horse, you only lost track of the essence in this discussion, not me.

And there is no winning in this discusion, because it is about personal preferences.

I can' t change your preference can I ?

@JdeB

Baan as in the Dutch company that nearly went broke

This has nothing to do with the quality of the software, is it. But rahter about the management of the company.

So I don't see why you bring this in relation to this topic ?

Don't understand why it would be disappointing when somebody doesn't agree

I brought up the Baan example, because you guys think that my request comes from another world.

Referencing the Baan exampe gives you a recognizable example of script language, where they don't make any fuss about a stupid DOT in a function name.

And there are more believe me.

Anyhow if that's the only thing that bothers me about AutoIT than it's not bad is it.

For the rest enjoy your weekend.

[Jos]

@JdeB

This has nothing to do with the quality of the software, is it. But rahter about the management of the company.

So I don't see why you bring this in relation to this topic ?

Just wasn't sure that's all .... no other reason.

[Valik]

@Valik

This is my last reply as well.

Whenever you run out of arguments, you state this "You're comparing apples to horses".

No, it's crap like this why I make statements like that. You have made countless statements in this thread based on nothing more than conjecture where all of my statements have been based on experience. I'm tired of arguing reason versus guessing.

I am not comparing apples an horse, you only lost track of the essence in this discussion, not me.

You're trying to draw a correlation between teaching monkeys to type "autoit" instead of "code" and teaching monkeys to write good code with properly named functions. If you see a correlation between the two, good for you. I don't. Typing "autoit" is a hell of a lot more simple thing to grasp than proper naming conventions. After all, if naming conventions were as simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place since the naming issue you are complaining about would not exist.

And there is no winning in this discusion, because it is about personal preferences.

I can' t change your preference can I ?

It's not just about personal preference. It's about language design. You're asking us to implement something in the language to fix a problem we can't fix.

[Squirrely1]

All that is required to end this topic is a famous Valik quote:

It's too bad I do know what I'm talking about, then, which makes you dead wrong.

[vim]

All that is required to end this topic is a famous Valik quote:

Actually it "ended" in the beginning of June, you just RESURRECTED it!