Math syntax parsing issue Topic is solved

[bonobo]

In the current implementation (and this should not be taken as any kind of guarantee), a variable is not dereferenced before becoming input to an operator or function. The variable itself is the input, and the operator or function dereferences the variable if that is what it is designed to do. An operator will use whatever value the variable has when the operator is evaluated, not the value one operand had before the other operand was evaluated. This is consistent across all operators, so for instance, &++x takes a variable reference, (++x) /= 2 increments and then halves, and ++x + ++x does what it does.

This helps a lot, thanks.

It occurs to me that if, for whatever reason, you really want the values (rather than variable reference) be used, it's possible to use throwaway variable assignments:

For example, compare this

Code: Select all

	i := 1
	j := ++i + ++i ; 6

with this

Code: Select all

	i := 1
	j := (_x := ++i) + (_y := ++i) ; 5

Also compare this:

Code: Select all

	i := 1
	arr2 := [++i, ++i, ++i] ; [4,4,4]

with this:

Code: Select all

	i := 1
	arr2 := [_x := ++i, _y := ++i, _z := ++i] ; [2,3,4]

[andymbody]

Nice comparison illustration of this behavior... thanks

[lexikos]

Number(++i) would avoid throwaway variables, as would (++i + 0).

[andymbody]

Number(++i) would avoid throwaway variables, as would (++i + 0).

I will use ++1+0 as the solution. It works!
Thank you!

[TheArkive]

This seems very reminiscent of AHK v1, the whole +0 thing. Oh the memories