At 4:13 AM +0100 on 1/25/01, lcs@... wrote:

>You replied:
>
>  HD> I can't agree with you here.  Although certainly BASIC,
>  > they are only readable to someone who is familiar with the
>  > language.  I still have trouble remembering if '!' is
>  > single or double.  I don't usually have to check the
>  > reference but DIM myVar! seems more unreadable to me
>  > than the verbose DIM myVar as single
>
>OK lets haggle a bit.
>
>The modern idea that variables of type % & ! # $
>should henceforth bear names that do not indicate
>their type makes about as much sense as giving girls
>and boys unisex names and unisex clothing while
>neverless pedantically insisting on sex differences in
>sports, toilet facilities, and locker room.  OK there
>is somewhere a catalog of declarations identifying sex
>to sort matters out. But that catalog learning
>exercise is for me an incessant pain in the brain.
>Compare that with learning the meaning of five symbols
>% & ! # $ once in a lifetime.

While there are times when knowing what the type of variable I've 
dim'd is very important, most of the time I don't see much need.  It 
is whatever type I have dim'd it as.

>  HD> myVar! might become myVar% somewhere down the line
>
>Those used to be distinct animals.  I hope they still are.
>And can coexist if I declare them!?

They still are but they shouldn't be.  Why would you want to use the 
same name for a variable that is going to have different types?

What should really happen is this:

Dim myVar& // declared myVar as Long

myVar = 0 // myVar is a LONG, compiler knows that already

I just find it easier to remember a descriptively named variable 
without having to remember the type and append it to the variable.

>  HD> Much easier to use a verbose name and not worry too
>  > much, at least for me.
>
>By all means defend your own taste.  It seems to let
>you play with the C-FB interface better then most
>of us, and that is a teriffic contribution.

I think that the syntax used in FBII is why I didn't use it much.  It 
wasn't until I subscribed to FB^3 that I found coding easier.  I 
really find C syntax easier to read than the FBII shorthand.  Code 
from you FBII old-hands is the hardest to read, everything done in 
shorthand, crammed together.  It's one thing to write 'tight' code 
but you don't have to take it seriously ;-)



-- 
Heather Donahue
-- non sum qualis eram