Latest Beta

[ProgAndy]

It has unexpected consequences (well, in pathalogical uses the help file warns against):

And with the new ternary operator we do not have to rely on this sluggish conversion. (1=1)?1:0 ist much cleaner

[twitchyliquid64]

Trust me on this: You're wasting your time. Maybe come back and try again in a year. Right now, though? Not such a good time to try that.

Understood. (Im not really up to the point of adding function pointers ATM, but I should be at that stage in two or three months, im sure I can delay it more though.)

Edited April 24, 2012 by twitchyliquid64

[ProgAndy]

Understood. (Im not really up to the point of adding function pointers ATM, but I should be at that stage in two or three months, im sure I can delay it more though.)

Only implement functionality from stable or at least beta releases. Everything else is subject to change and you will never get it right. Edited April 24, 2012 by ProgAndy

[jchd]

Andy,

That's why I wrote "pathological". But Valik gave the reason.

BTW and while I think about it, I sometimes find it useful to have a built-in Sign() function valued in {-1, 0, 1}. Not a great feature and certainly not a complex addition to the core(*) but it would make the language more complete wrt basic arithmetic.

Edit: here I meant "the core functions" not the language engine of course.

Edited April 24, 2012 by jchd

[Raik]

• The $ in variables is now optional. If you want to continue using $ to prefix your variables that is fine and will continue to be supported. If you'd rather drop the $ that is fine, too, though be aware you cannot have variables with the same name as functions unless you prefix the variable with $.

with my limited knowledge about the program logic behind this, will this not break scripts like this?

Opt('ExpandVarStrings',1)
$does="does not"
#cs
some other code ...
#ce
$not=" not"
If someFunc() <> 0 Then
    $not=""
EndIf
$cmd_line_for_external_program=" /say 'This does$not work!'"

Is this a feature for lazy programing or is it a prearrangement for new programing techniques?

if so, i hope, autoit will not become a complex and cryptic high-level-language as c++ alike.

[Valik]

Your code should work as expected because you didn't write it in a way that it would potentially break. I think I know what you were going for however. So with that in mind...

ExpandVarStrings is stupid (as all are Opt()'s) and I don't really give a damn if it's broken or not. I imagine we can force ExpandVarStrings to only expand prefixed variables, though. Assuming it doesn't already.

[veronesi]

Hi!

The new C++ style ternary operators are really impressive!

In this case it could replace the _Iif command! The code would be very clean and in one line.

Global Const $sPhone1 = "+41 44 1111111"
Global Const $sPhone2 = "+41 44 2222222"
Global $iSelector = 1

MsgBox(64, "Info", "Please call " & ($iSelector = 1) ? $sPhone1:$sPhone2)

Really nice and well done.

Veronesi

[Kip]

Hi!

The new C++ style ternary operators are really impressive!

In this case it could replace the _Iif command! The code would be very clean and in one line.

Global Const $sPhone1 = "+41 44 1111111"
Global Const $sPhone2 = "+41 44 2222222"
Global $iSelector = 1

MsgBox(64, "Info", "Please call " & ($iSelector = 1) ? $sPhone1:$sPhone2)

Really nice and well done.

Veronesi

An array would be even "cleaner":

Global Const $aPhones[] = ["+41 1234567", "+41 987654"]

MsgBox(64, "info", "Please call "& $aPhones[1] )

Edited April 24, 2012 by Kip

[veronesi]

That's right.

But nevertheless you can use the new C++ style ternary operators

MsgBox(64, "Info", "Please call " & ($iSelector = 1) ? $asNumbers[0]:$asNumbers[1])

[Valik]

This is why Jon didn't want to add ternary operators. If you do not know how to use them they make the code worse. I softened him somewhat on them by using them (correctly) to write AutoIt. Seeing code like that causes me to regret giving the green light to the feature, though.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Valik

[Zedna]

@Valik

Maybe it would be good to mention some basic advice for correct using of ternary operators in Documentation.

I expect most of Autoit's users are not familiar with such programming techniques.

[trancexx]

Problems with misuse or abuse of ternary is not (will not be) AutoIt specific.

[Valik]

Operators like ternary are not added to teach people new tricks. They are added so that people who know about them and expect them can use them. The only way we can teach people not to write shit code is to not demonstrate shit code in the examples. That's why I want most of the examples revised which guinness has been working on.

[guinness]

Yeh and will be complete by the next stable version for those who are interested.

Edited April 24, 2012 by guinness

[czardas]

I always had a firm belief in ternary.

[NJJudUser]

We have the new BETA and we are having some issues with WinWaitActive function on Windows 7 64 bit. Is there some other "include" that we need to have in order for this to work on windows 7?

[NJJudUser]

I am sorry for posting this in this space because, as a newly registered user, i do not have the ability to start new posts.

[Valik]

Maybe that's because you're in the wrong area completely?

[MvGulik]

#383 ... Interesting.

[Shaggi]

If you decide to keep the ternaries, here's a small bug.

dummy = random(0,1,1) ? b() : c() ; works

random(0,1,1) ? b() : c() ; won't

Autoit throws errors if you don't catch the return - this isn't the case with functions or the like.