dummy fields

[Kenneth Brody]

On 10/20/2010 7:15 AM, John Esak wrote:
[...]
>> 3) Are dummy variables matching reserved operators valid?
>> Examples:  co, eq, gt, et, le, lt.  My recollection is that thoy -are-
[...]
> All the operators can be dummies.  GE, EQ, NE, etc.   As for how this is all
> parsed, well that's the secret sauce... Isn't it! :-)
>
> Seriously, Ken is just a genius and that's all there is to it.

Well, thank you.  But, the original parser was written by Dave.  While I 
have extended and enhanced it over the years, the ability to unambiguously 
have dummy fields named "co", "lt", and the like, has always been there.

[...]
> "stuff" it is easy to tell by position what:
>
>      if: GE GE GE - EQ
>
> Means.  :-)
>
> Did I actually use the word "easy" in that description...

Yes, you did.  While the human brain way go "umm.. what was that again?", 
the computer parser sees nothing more than "if field GE is greater than or 
equal to (field GE minus field EQ)" and is no harder to parse than:

   If:  le le or or gt gt eq / or or ne ne ge / le

For those humans having trouble parsing that:

     ( (le) le (or) )
     or
     ( (gt) gt (eq / or) )
     or
     ( (ne) ne (ge / le) )

Throw in some conveniently-named labels and variables, and you can have 
hours of fun, amazing your friends and co-workers.

[...]

-- 
Kenneth Brody