AutoHotkey Community

vvhitevvizard

objrelease does return the references number. Well, one can live with it for debugging purpose by adding a new object reference and then removing it to get the function's return value. ok. Number are not supported means that it will not consider numeric input as a number and return a number We talk...

vvhitevvizard

Yes but what if a reference counter is unknown and/or the culprits that increase it r unknown as well, and we need to obtain the count (for debugging purpose)? For a complex project it might be very hard to manually keep every reference in check. Having the ability to count the object's references w...

vvhitevvizard

Then this documentation article needs to be updated: Any string value or variable. Numbers are not supported. -> Any string/numeric value or variable. 50. Debugging facility. To add ObjRefs(obj) returning object's reference-counting to replace this undocumented object's data use with a built-in func...

vvhitevvizard

49. https://lexikos.github.io/v2/docs/commands/Trim.htm Any string value or variable. Numbers are not supported. s:=7700.4 ;type=float msgbox(s:=ltrim(s,"7")) output: 00.3999999999996 ;type=string So it silently converts a pure number (integer/float) into a string before trimming it. Either the doc...

vvhitevvizard

Hmm, ur results show 3% delta (0.531 vs 0.517) with V119 being faster than v118. Is that correct? If it is then yeah that test is unreliable. What OS u use? you should measure doing the one thing 500000 times one time. That's what I do in the previous test suit test2.7z by measuring 1 relatively hug...

vvhitevvizard

@vvhitevvizard If we create three different RegExMatch() regex ~= , will it confuse people? Possibility to choose would confuse some. :D But in general, having function's counterparts with slightly different in/out types and/or total params amount is common: E.g. gdiplus\GdipFillRectangle accepting...

vvhitevvizard

Not on my pc. I mostly use Win 10 LTSB/LTSC (stable but reduced functionality builds). I tested on 4 different machines (2 desktops and 2 notebooks), gonna test Win7 OS sandboxed in a virtual machine. Could u please post ur output for the latest script and for the test2.7z one? Addition to #48 . In...

vvhitevvizard

Concerning V119's slowdown (https://www.autohotkey.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=344631#p344631) I found something. Run this with V2-118 and V2-119. 6% slowdown for average result (rightmost). Reproducible. Steady 6-7% (0.38mcs vs 0.41mcs) on each run. But unlike the test script in the link above, min ...

vvhitevvizard

1 more inconsistency with control flow statements. if (expr)=if(expr), but return (expr) is not the same as return(expr).

Code: Select all

f:=1
if(f){ ;OK
}
if (f){ ;OK
}
e()

e(){
	f:=1
	return(f) ;ERROR: call to non-existent function (unexpected)
	;return (f) ;OK
}

vvhitevvizard

The pattern is not always so simple, thus the result is not always a simple string. To return the whole string for simple patterns (= Match.Value(0) ) or the first captured group inside () (= Match.Value(1) ) or NULL (empty string) if none found. It makes sense to have a simplified RegExMatch 's co...

vvhitevvizard

RegExMatch(), we pass in is a pattern like "\d+", so the expected result is the string that matches the pattern. not a pattern in or not in the Haystack. I do support ur point. I, for one, would like all that stuff to follow the same design rule. Changing RegExMatch() to return substr or NULL (empt...

vvhitevvizard

tuzi lexikos nnnik IMHO regexmatch and instr return what is naturally expected (a found index within the string) but we might have their counterparts added to return a substring, too. Or add additional output var parameter to them. It would save CPU time and reduce script's code cuz in the majority...

vvhitevvizard

I tried to clean up OP again. Added #48 . BTW, what does the community think of #24 blatant issue? E.g., that bug (against expectation) swallows the whole line in here (just run it and see the parsing time error, don't mind runtime errors): (r:=dllcall("bcrypt.dll\BCryptCreateHash", 'ptr',o.p, "ptrp...

vvhitevvizard

thank u. Point well taken! One of the two bitmaps gets destroyed indeed.

vvhitevvizard

Basically the major issue of command and function syntax co-existence is the general expectation that follows other languages (C/CPP,D,E,F, Go and so on - the majority of them) design rule: a variable/object member's name with () following it executes the function/method with that name, a name w/o (...

vvhitevvizard

N o Why not? Could u clarify ur point? Those r handles (essentially integers). I would keep byref for [in] parameters for potentially long strings (if performance is of most importance) and for actual pointers, passed by &var (old AHK syntax) and strptr(var) (new AHK syntax). And treat all the othe...

vvhitevvizard

SOTE A good resource to get an idea of trending syntax is Rosetta Code aggregator, e.g.: https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Percentage_difference_between_images AHK V1 example out there doesn't actually use additional libraries, instead it calls GDI functions directly. So one might think AHK is a do-it-u...

vvhitevvizard

Helgef wrote: ↑
31 Jul 2020, 06:31
The point was that the caller might keep a handle to the bitmap which you destroy.

Adding to ur comment: removing ByRef for both bitmap handle arguments would make it safe as well.

vvhitevvizard

Code: Select all

  while ((i:=IsSet(i)?i:0)++ < 2)

That feels redundant. ->

Code: Select all

i:=0  
  while(i++ < 2)

vvhitevvizard

48. thats faux-command syntax for u. because theres nothing to infer a get/set context, its interpreted as a feeble attempt at method/function call. Good timing to set about writing "AHK V2: 100 reasons to hate command syntax" book. :D I suppose its worth being #48 then. :evil: So if explicit expre...

Search found 405 matches

Re: Updated to v2-119. [list of 50 suggestions]

Re: Updated to v2-119. [list of 50 suggestions]

Re: Updated to v2-119. [list of 48 suggestions]

Re: Updated to v2-119. [list of 48 suggestions]

Re: Updated to v2-119. [list of 48 suggestions]

Re: Is it possible to keep string processing syntax consistent？

Re: Updated to v2-119. [list of 48 suggestions]

Re: Updated to v2-119. [list of 48 suggestions]

Re: Updated to v2-119. [list of 48 suggestions]

Re: Is it possible to keep string processing syntax consistent？

Re: Is it possible to keep string processing syntax consistent？

Re: Is it possible to keep string processing syntax consistent？

Re: Updated to v2-119. [list of 48 suggestions]

Re: [a119] Associative or Pseudo- Arrays and Dereferencing Numbers Topic is solved

Re: Updated to v2-119. [list of 47 suggestions]

Re: [a119] Associative or Pseudo- Arrays and Dereferencing Numbers Topic is solved

Re: Conflicts caused by V2

Re: [a119] Associative or Pseudo- Arrays and Dereferencing Numbers Topic is solved

Re: [a119] Associative or Pseudo- Arrays and Dereferencing Numbers Topic is solved

Re: Updated to v2-119. [list of 47 suggestions]