On 2008-05-01, Maury Pepper <mpepper_scram_spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Duke Normandin" <dukeofperl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:0waSj.3316$PM5.2929@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On 2008-04-30, Rob Tweed <rtweed@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[snip]
>>> daft invention and at worst just plain evil, and are to be avoided at
>>> all costs. Stick to explicit global references or you'll end up with
>>> an incomprehensible, unmaintainable mess. I'm sure someone somewhere
>>> will wade in with a wall of flame to extol their arcane virtues but
>>> I've never encountered a single situation in 28 years where they made
>>> any sense whatsoever.
>>
>> I believe you! Once I know what "****d references" are, I'll be in a
>> better position to judge for myself.
>> --
>> Duke Normandin
>
> See: http://71.174.62.16/Demo/AnnoStd
"The prefix ^ uniquely denotes a
> global variable name. A global variable name is either unsubscripted or
> subscripted; if it is subscripted, any number of subscripts separated by
> commas is permitted. Except where otherwise specified, a subscript may
not
> equal the empty string. An abbreviated form of subscripted gvn is
permitted,
> called the ****d reference, in which the prefix is present but the
> environment, name and an initial (possibly empty) sequence of subscripts
is
> absent but implied by the value of the ****d indicator. An unsubscripted
> occurrence of gvn may carry a different value from any subscripted
> occurrence of gvn."
>
> If, instead of using ****d reference for my example, I had used a
function
> with side-effects, it would probably have provoked a similar rant.
I read the above URL after spending 20 minutes looking for the appropriate
material. I must say that its fairly confusing to this Mumps noob. Would
you
give me a comparative example, please. At any rate, I suspect that "****d
references" are something that I can live without for quite some time - is
that correct? TIA...
--
Duke Normandin
|
