I, I'm just to report that my compiler had a bug #91; block variable not
set. I know its not as important as the events bug, but I thought I'll just
to report this, since the message tells me to and also your fixing the
compiler up anyways.

___________________
Ray Xu
r...@tx.rr.com
DPRG member
OOPic group member
Seattle Robotics
group member
My Blog

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

And I hit another bug/error. It's runtime error 1001, invalid index number
-1. I don't know if its my PC, or it's the compiler. I'm guessing it has
to do with variable blocks again.

___________________
Ray Xu
r...@tx.rr.com
DPRG member
OOPic group member
Seattle Robotics
group member
My Blog

-----Original Message-----
From: o...@yahoogroups.com [mailto:o...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ray
xu
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 8:28 PM
To: o...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [oopic] another bug!

I, I'm just to report that my compiler had a bug #91; block variable not
set. I know its not as important as the events bug, but I thought I'll just
to report this, since the message tells me to and also your fixing the
compiler up anyways.

___________________
Ray Xu
r...@tx.rr. com
DPRG org> member
OOPic
groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/> group member
Seattle
groups.yahoo.com/group/SeattleRobotics/> Robotics
group member
My Blog blogspot.com/>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

You'll have to wait until Scott goes through all of my old posts on this forum.

At 09:35 PM 8/5/2008, ray xu wrote:
>And I hit another bug/error. It's runtime error 1001, invalid index number
>-1. I don't know if its my PC, or it's the compiler. I'm guessing it has
>to do with variable blocks again.

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Porrett wrote:
> You'll have to wait until Scott goes through all of my old posts on
this forum.

Not all of them.

Most of them are checking out to be quite accurate, informative and
very helpful.

Its just the ones that have speculations about the operation of the
compiler that I feel need clarification.

I am noticing a pattern here...
But we'll talk about that in private
Care to shoot me a email?

Scott Savage
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, "ray xu" wrote:
> I, I'm just to report that my compiler had a bug #91; block
> variable not set.

I will need to know the details of the program.

Zip it up and send it to me.

Scott Savage
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

At 12:14 AM 8/6/2008, scottmsavage wrote:
>--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Porrett wrote:
> > You'll have to wait until Scott goes through all of my old posts on
>this forum.
>
>Not all of them.

There are only 600 of them.
>Most of them are checking out to be quite accurate, informative and
>very helpful.
>
>Its just the ones that have speculations about the operation of the
>compiler that I feel need clarification.

And I note that some of your clarifications need clarifying. Like
the claim that return(value) works in the V5 compiler; it doesn't,
but you say it does?
>I am noticing a pattern here...
>But we'll talk about that in private
>Care to shoot me a email?

If you have something to say, just say it.
...Andy

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Porrett wrote:
> > Most of them (your posts) are checking out to be quite
> > accurate, informative and very helpful.
> > Its just the ones that have speculations about the operation
> > of the compiler that I feel need clarification.

> And I note that some of your clarifications need clarifying. Like
> the claim that return(value) works in the V5 compiler; it doesn't,
> but you say it does?

Yes. I in fact do. I ran a test before I posted.

Here is the program for Ver 5:
--------------------------
byte a;

sub void main(void){
a = foo;
}

function byte foo(void){
a = 1;
return(6);
}
--------------------------

Here is a subset of the instructions generated by the ver 5 compiler:
--------------------------
----:<@Call#1-Exit>: After foo is called.....
0030:111 '->foo This is where 'a' gets assigned to 'foo'
0031:247 'GetVariable
0032:110 '->a
0033:246 'Setvariable
0034:129 'Branch
----::
----::
0035:001 'Number This is where 'a' gets set to 1.
0036:110 '->a
0037:246 'Setvariable
0038:006 'Number This is where foo gets set to 6.
0039:111 '->foo
0040:194 'Let Value
0041:129 'Branch Return from the function....
----::
--------------------------

Works just like it should.

Scott Savage
------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

So what aren't you telling us? I know for a fact that it didn't work
when I started using OOPics and your own documentation from that era
backs me up:



If you fixed it at some point, you should be well aware of it (and
when it was done). The information never made it to me.

At 01:04 AM 8/6/2008, scottmsavage wrote:
>--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Porrett wrote:
> > > Most of them (your posts) are checking out to be quite
> > > accurate, informative and very helpful.
> > > Its just the ones that have speculations about the operation
> > > of the compiler that I feel need clarification.
>
> > And I note that some of your clarifications need clarifying. Like
> > the claim that return(value) works in the V5 compiler; it doesn't,
> > but you say it does?
>
>Yes. I in fact do. I ran a test before I posted.
>
>Here is the program for Ver 5:
>--------------------------
>byte a;
>
>sub void main(void){
> a = foo;
>}
>
>function byte foo(void){
> a = 1;
> return(6);
>}
>--------------------------
>
>Here is a subset of the instructions generated by the ver 5 compiler:
>--------------------------
>----:<@Call#1-Exit>: After foo is called.....
>0030:111 '->foo This is where 'a' gets assigned to 'foo'
>0031:247 'GetVariable
>0032:110 '->a
>0033:246 'Setvariable
>0034:129 'Branch
>----::
>----::
>0035:001 'Number This is where 'a' gets set to 1.
>0036:110 '->a
>0037:246 'Setvariable
>0038:006 'Number This is where foo gets set to 6.
>0039:111 '->foo
>0040:194 'Let Value
>0041:129 'Branch Return from the function....
>----::
>--------------------------
>
>Works just like it should.
>
>Scott Savage

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In o...@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Porrett wrote:
> I know for a fact that it didn't work
> when I started using OOPics
> If you fixed it at some point,
> The information never made it to me.

Well, I know that Dennis was keeping a database for users to read that
contained the current bug list and which ones were fixed when.

But outside of that, any suggestions on how to improve the visibility
would definitely help the user community.

Scott Savage

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of oopic -- send a blank email to oopic-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )