browse keys (@bk)

[Bill Vermillion]

It was Tue, Jul 20 11:13 when Jay R. Ashworth said "Mia
kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj. And continued:

> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:59:25AM -0400, John Esak wrote:
> > >          If: @bk = "s" or @bk = "S"
> > >    23  Then: rn=ord(@rn);GOTO get_shp
> > >          If: @BK = "U" or @bk = "u"
> > >    24  Then: fh="0";rn=ord(@rn);GOTO up_rec
> > >          If: @BK = "D" or @bk = "d"
> > >    25  Then: fh=f;rn=ord(@rn);ln=ord(14);GOTO del_rec

> > Just a quick note... this must be some legacy code you inherited, or just
> > very old code before you knew better... :-), but it makes it look here as if
> > testing the @bk for browse lookups is case-sensitive, because sometimes it
> > is used and other times not. @bk is not case sensitive, at least not for
> > letters, which are the only thing which are case sensitive themselves. If
> > you were checking for an ( or something, of course that requires that the
> > user press the Shift key to get to it, but this is not the same thing. For
> > those just starting to use @bk, it does not discern the difference between
> > a-z and A-Z, either is intercepted and acted upon in the same way.

> True, but that does not necessarily imply -- the fact that
> filePro doesn't care which case you press the key in -- that
> the *system dummy* will return it's reply in a specific case.

> Happens it will; I just tested it: even if you press "X", what
> you get back in @BK is "x". I don't know whether I think that's
> a feature or a bug; I do know it's not documented. *Anywhere*
> -- it should be in 18.11.2.11 of Stuart's fourth, but it's not.

> But more importantly, how come "=" is acceptable on an IF line?

I've asked that years ago.  I have always used the EQ on the IF
line.  It makes code much easier to scan for errors and leave
the = to be as it has always been in mathematical areas - an
assignment operator.

I forgot what the answer to my question was, but I was thought
to be ?? [picky|something-else], and was brushed off.

> I see that that is in Stuart's book, but ISTR that it used to give
> syntax errors; when did it start working?

I never recall taht it gave syntax errors - all the way back to
1.0 - but since the last time I used 1.0 was about 1985/6 I can't
be sure.  Maybe I'm just memory-challenged.

Bill

-- 
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com