DIM - AS - VARIABLE TYPE likely bug - Printable Version +- QB64 Phoenix Edition (https://qb64phoenix.com/forum) +-- Forum: QB64 Rising (https://qb64phoenix.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Code and Stuff (https://qb64phoenix.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +---- Forum: Help Me! (https://qb64phoenix.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10) +---- Thread: DIM - AS - VARIABLE TYPE likely bug (/showthread.php?tid=2651) |
DIM - AS - VARIABLE TYPE likely bug - bartok - 05-03-2024 I have found a probable bug using AS. Writing, for example: DIM A% it's the same then writing DIM A AS INTEGER But it is possible to write: DIM A% DIM A$ but we incur into a "Name already in use" error if we write: DIM A AS INTEGER DIM A AS STRING Example: Code: (Select All)
RE: DIM - AS - VARIABLE TYPE likely bug - SMcNeill - 05-03-2024 No bug. That's how BASIC is designed. Just like CONST, once you explicitly define something, it locks out other definitions. RE: DIM - AS - VARIABLE TYPE likely bug - bartok - 05-03-2024 (05-03-2024, 09:48 AM)SMcNeill Wrote: No bug. That's how BASIC is designed. Just like CONST, once you explicitly define something, it locks out other definitions. So, what's the difference in defining a variable as DIM A AS INTEGER compared to DIM A% ? RE: DIM - AS - VARIABLE TYPE likely bug - Kernelpanic - 05-03-2024 (05-03-2024, 09:54 AM)bartok Wrote:There is no difference in the matter. A declaration like *)"A%" is the way the old Basic freaks write, and it's hard to break away from something like that. The same applies to "Option _Explicit".(05-03-2024, 09:48 AM)SMcNeill Wrote: No bug. That's how BASIC is designed. Just like CONST, once you explicitly define something, it locks out other definitions.So, what's the difference in defining a variable as It didn't exist in QB, and declarations with "Dim" only had the benefit of not having to constantly write in the program: A% here, A% there, and so on. But spelling mistakes were still not reported. *)Only A%, not Dim A% For example: Code: (Select All)
RE: DIM - AS - VARIABLE TYPE likely bug - bartok - 05-03-2024 (05-03-2024, 10:35 AM)Kernelpanic Wrote:(05-03-2024, 09:54 AM)bartok Wrote:There is no difference in the matter. A declaration like "Dim A%" is the way the old Basic freaks write, and it's hard to break away from something like that. The same applies to "Option _Explicit".(05-03-2024, 09:48 AM)SMcNeill Wrote: No bug. That's how BASIC is designed. Just like CONST, once you explicitly define something, it locks out other definitions.So, what's the difference in defining a variable as RE: DIM - AS - VARIABLE TYPE likely bug - bplus - 05-03-2024 first of all, unless you are using option _explicit you don't have to dim single varaibles before using them dim a% or dim as integer a or dim a as integer or defint a-z or redim a% or redim as integer a or redim a as integer 7 different ways to make a an integer type btw if you start dim as integer you can list a bunch of variables to dim as integer dim as integer a, b, c, d use as first after dim though so all a, b, c, d are integer dim a as integer, b, c, d makes a integer but b, c, d will use default single type again, without option _explicit, you can just start using a% ;-)) and thats fine for a little code snippet specially it will be 0 until you assign another value to it it is good programming form to define your variables before using them and option _explicit will tell you immediately if you mistyped or are trying to use an undefined variable. you do have to dim arrays with > 11 items Code: (Select All) For i = 0 To 10 RE: DIM - AS - VARIABLE TYPE likely bug - bplus - 05-03-2024 Quote:but we incur into a "Name already in use" error if we write: ah, there is no suffix for qb64 to tell the differenece between the 2 a's this lets you define everything as a type unless you explicitly say something different DefInt A-Z Dim A As String RE: DIM - AS - VARIABLE TYPE likely bug - bartok - 05-03-2024 (05-03-2024, 12:59 PM)bplus Wrote:Quote:but we incur into a "Name already in use" error if we write: I have understood. IMO, QB could have been programmed in a way in which the suffix of the varible "A" definied with "DIM A AS INTEGER" was "%", as it is in the case of "DIM A%", considered that in both the ways we define exactly the same variabile. But QB is conceived so that we can have: DIM A% DIM A! DIM A$ DIM A& etc, but we cannot have DIM A AS INTEGER DIM A AS SINGLE DIM A AS STRING DIM A AS LONG etc. The only reason I found for this, is that if we use "AS" instead of the suffixes, then in the code is possible to use variable name without having to add the suffix each time and, in order to be able to do that, only one "A" must be allowed. But finally, even if at first this could seem a simplification, actually I prefer to use suffixes for 2 reasons: 1. We could have variables that actually are exactly the same thing and therefore should have the same name. For example a coordinate X, that it is integer(%) or single(!) depending if we are on a view port coordinate or in physical screen coordinate. So, using (AS) it will be compulsory to use different variable name, but I don't find anything clearer than the possibility of using X% and X!; 2. I find that presence of the suffixes actually makes the code more readable. So, I think is preferable to DIM variables and arrays with suffixes, avoiding the use of AS. RE: DIM - AS - VARIABLE TYPE likely bug - bplus - 05-03-2024 (05-03-2024, 02:00 PM)bartok Wrote:(05-03-2024, 12:59 PM)bplus Wrote:Quote:but we incur into a "Name already in use" error if we write: yes having suffix makes clear what type and wont let you forget but me, i hate to type, specially those keys that require the use of shift thats 3 keys for a% and the last 2 have to be aligned in time, oh so much more work (specially if your shift key is broken) ;-)) RE: DIM - AS - VARIABLE TYPE likely bug - Kernelpanic - 05-03-2024 @bartok - I don't want to offend you, but are you sure that programming is right for you? I have now looked at your questions and comments, and in my opinion, since 2022 until today, you haven't understood that programming has nothing to do with philosophical considerations. Quote:Sometimes to chose a solution rather then an other could be a philosofical issue, but sometimes is not.https://qb64phoenix.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=785&page=2&highlight=bartok My humble recommendation: Buy a book about what programming means, such as: Code Complete, Version 1 The standard work on programming |