grouping functs and Variables?

[codejunkie 0]

Removed

Edited March 29, 2005 by codejunkie

[jpm 43]

are you speaking AutoIT3 language as described in the DOC?

[codejunkie 0]

OK I take it the answer to my question is no

[SvenP 0]

OK I take it the answer to my question is no 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hello codejunkie,

I think you want to use OOP style of programming? (Object Oriented)

Well, the beta-beta version of AutoIt does do COM-functions, but not OOP.

It is very difficult to implement. I don't think it will ever be implemented, because existing programming languages like Visual Basic or Java are more suitable for these kind of things.

Regards,

-Sven

[codejunkie 0]

Hello codejunkie,

I think you want to use OOP style of programming?  (Object Oriented)

Well, the beta-beta version of AutoIt does do COM-functions, but not OOP.

It is very difficult to implement. I don't think it will ever be implemented, because existing programming languages like Visual Basic or Java are more suitable for these kind of things.

Regards,

-Sven

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok suppose it doesnt make much diffrence anyway just adds few '.' to my code no big deal

[layer 2]

DataStore.$Variable

That's not even AutoIt code

[sohfeyr 1]

Have you considered using a common prefix to group variables and functions catagorically? In an alphabetic listing of functions (as rendered in SciTE), related functions will appear together.

For a simple example, say you wanted to build a "class" to define default values for message boxes or parameters of MsgBox(). All functions or global variables dealing with managing message boxes could begin with "MsgMgt_".

As in, the function:

MsgMgt_SetMsgBoxLocation($x, $y)

could set global variables:

$MsgMgt_MsgBoxLocation_x

$MsgMgt_MsgBoxLocation_y

True, it makes the code look more complicated, and it isn't nearly as efficient as classes and objects, but it does lend an organizing principle even to commonly named variables like x and y.