The Weird and The Wonderful

raddevus wrote:

We know everyone steals design ideas from each other, so why didn't the designers of these languages steal from each other and make let and var mean the same darn things?!?

Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.

Eddy Vluggen wrote:

Because, according to marketing-ideas, the language needs its own "identity".

Eddy Vluggen wrote:

In a few years, C# will have more keywords than those three languages combined

raddevus wrote:

Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.

den2k88 wrote:

C++/30 will consist entirely of keywords and variables will be inferred by the context.

Richard Deeming wrote:

Wait until you see VB.NET's array declarations. They still use the upper bound instead of the length because that's what VB6 did, despite the fact that the reason it did that no longer applies to VB.NET!

Member 9167057 wrote:

I think that language designers more often than not explicitly try to remain different from the existing stuff for the sake of, I guess, differentiation for the sake of it.

Sander Rossel wrote:

Just let it go

Dim rst As ADODB.Recordset
Set rst = ...

Dim foo As Variant 
foo = rst["Bar"]

• The Recordset class doesn't have an indexer, but it has a default property called Fields which does.
• The indexer returns an ADODB.Field object, with a non-indexed default property called Value.
• At this point, the compiler wouldn't know whether you want the variable to contain the field object or the field's value.
• Therefore you have to use Set if you want the field object, and Let (or nothing) if you want the value.

den2k88 wrote:

Let assigned the result of an arithmetical expression

int main() {
begin:
   try {
      //do stuff
      }
   catch(...) {
      //fix stuff
      goto begin;
      }
   return 0;
   }

David O'Neil wrote:

goto

void Repeater::createRepeatedObjs() {
   if (!createdObjsC.empty()) throw dwl::Exception(_T("Delete created objs prior to "
               "creation"));
   app::ObjMap & holder = appC.objMap();
   holder.setPtrPos(s_cast<OBJECT_TIME>(0));
   object::BaseObj * obj;
   object::BaseObj * objToCopy;
   while ((obj = holder.objAtPtr()) && obj != nullptr && obj->time() < endTimeC) {
      if (obj->time() < timeC) goto breakout;
      for (size_t i=1, count=numRepeatsC; i<=count; ++i) {
         object::BaseObj::Type type = obj->type();
         if (type == object::BaseObj::Type::TypeOne) {
            object::TypeOne * typeOne = s_cast<object::TypeOne *>(obj);
            object::ObjParent * parent = s_cast<object::ObjParent*>(typeOne->parent());
            if (parent) objToCopy = parent;
            else objToCopy = typeOne;
            }
         else if (type == object::BaseObj::Type::TypeTwo) goto breakout;
         else if (type == object::BaseObj::Type::TypeThree) goto breakout;
         else objToCopy = obj;

         //Don't make copies of copies!
         if (objToCopy->copyOf()) goto breakout;

         std::unique_ptr<object::BaseObj> newObj = objToCopy->copyToTick(objToCopy->time() +
                     durationC * i);
         if (newObj->type() == object::BaseObj::Type::ObjParent) {
            s_cast<object::ObjParent*>(newObj.get())->typeOne().copyOf((object::BaseObj*)1);
            s_cast<object::ObjParent*>(newObj.get())->noteOff().copyOf((object::BaseObj*)1);
            }
         createdObjsC.push_back(newObj.get());
         newObj.release(); //It is in the vector
         }
breakout:
      holder.incObjPtr();
      }
   }

void Repeater::createRepeatedObjs() {
   if (!createdObjsC.empty()) throw dwl::Exception(_T("Delete created objs prior to "
               "creation"));
   app::ObjMap & holder = appC.objMap();
   holder.setPtrPos(s_cast<OBJECT_TIME>(0));
   object::BaseObj * obj;
   object::BaseObj * objToCopy;
   while ((obj = holder.objAtPtr()) && obj != nullptr && obj->time() < endTimeC) {
      if (obj->time() < timeC) goto breakout;
      for (size_t i=1, count=numRepeatsC; i<=count; ++i) {
         object::BaseObj::Type type = obj->type();

         if (!(type == object::BaseObj::Type::TypeTwo ||
               type == object::BaseObj::Type::TypeThree)) {
            if (type == object::BaseObj::Type::TypeOne) {
               object::TypeOne * typeOne = s_cast<object::TypeOne *>(obj);
               object::ObjParent * parent = s_cast<object::ObjParent*>(typeOne->parent());
               if (parent) objToCopy = parent;
               else objToCopy = typeOne;
               }
            else objToCopy = obj;
            }

         //Don't make copies of copies!
         if (!(objToCopy->copyOf())) {
            std::unique_ptr<object::BaseObj> newObj = objToCopy->copyToTick(objToCopy->time() +
                        durationC * i);
            if (newObj->type() == object::BaseObj::Type::ObjParent) {
               s_cast<object::ObjParent*>(newObj.get())->typeOne().copyOf((object::BaseObj*)1);
               s_cast<object::ObjParent*>(newObj.get())->noteOff().copyOf((object::BaseObj*)1);
               }
            createdObjsC.push_back(newObj.get());
            newObj.release(); //It is in the vector
            }
         }
      holder.incObjPtr();
      }
   }