Select & Try..Catch block syntax limitations
BlitzMax Forums/BlitzMax Programming/Select & Try..Catch block syntax limitations
| ||
|
| ||
Works here, you have to remove the () after the catch and case |
| ||
Works here, you have to remove the () after the catch and case I know that. Hence 'syntax limitations'.Why allow the parentheses on a single argument to Case but not on multiples? |
| ||
The parenthesis is being treated as an expression; (0)= 0, but (5, 10) is a syntax error. Edit: Select/Case are keywords not function calls. |
| ||
Edit: Select/Case are keywords not function calls. I understand that. The (0)=0 point is interesting..Thats just my coding style, I don't like open ended keywords/functions, regardless if they return something. |
| ||
You can use parenthesis the way you tried, but like this: Case (5),(10) I don't know why you would want to though. |
| ||
I don't know why you would want to though. I also prefer Select/Case above a elseif construction, it feels cleaner. Why wouldn't you use it? Ofcource you're going to run into situations where a variable can have more than one value for which you want to execute the same code. |
| ||
I think he meant, "why would you want to use the parenthesis" in his example - since they don't do anything other than add clutter. Different if you are using a complex expression instead, of course. |
| ||
Case (5),(10) Why would anyone want to do it like that?I don't know why you would want to though. Like I said before.. I just prefer to use parentheses at the end of certain keywords. I hadn't noticed the effect (0) had until it was noted, which pretty much declares this not even a feature in the syntax. |
| ||
I understand that. The (0)=0 point is interesting.. How is it interesting? The parenthesis is just part of the expression, like (1+2) is the same as 1+2 which is evaluated at compile time to 3.I usually use parentheses for function calls or expressions in which I need to change the operator precedence. |
| ||
How is it interesting? The parenthesis is just part of the expression, like (1+2) is the same as 1+2 which is evaluated at compile time to 3. Something can't be interesting if I hadn't noticed it before posting?I fully understand that using parentheses is solving an equation, and I knew that before, I just never noticed it in this case because it didn't seem to fit. |