Difference between revisions of "Talk:ReNamer:Pascal Script:Quick guide"

From den4b Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "Hi Denis, I saw something strange on this page. Could you take a look at the case/switch explanations? Because as far as I know, on ReNamer's scripts it doesn't do the "fall-th...")
 
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
Could you take a look at the case/switch explanations?
 
Could you take a look at the case/switch explanations?
  
Because as far as I know, on ReNamer's scripts it doesn't do the "fall-through", I think it'sare always "exclusive".
+
Because as far as I know, on ReNamer's scripts it doesn't do the "fall-through", I think they are always "exclusive".
  
 
Am I wrong?
 
Am I wrong?
  
Either way, if the info it's ok, wouldn't be more logical that the "exclusive" would appear after the "fall-through"?
+
Either way, if the info is ok, wouldn't be more logical that the "exclusive" would appear after the "fall-through"?
 +
 
 +
-- [[User:SafetyCar|SafetyCar]]
 +
 
 +
----
 +
 
 +
You are right, there is no "fall-through" in Delphi / Pascal for "case" structure. I have removed the invalid block. This article was copied from somewhere by [[User:Narayan|Narayan]] and I haven't actually verified it. In the last week I already corrected 2 major flows.
 +
 
 +
-- [[User:Den4b|Den4b]] 03:40, 23 June 2011 (BST)
 +
 
 +
----
 +
 
 +
Ok, thanks for your reply. The discussion can be deleted if you want.
 +
 
 +
-- [[User:SafetyCar|SafetyCar]]

Latest revision as of 08:07, 23 June 2011

Hi Denis, I saw something strange on this page.

Could you take a look at the case/switch explanations?

Because as far as I know, on ReNamer's scripts it doesn't do the "fall-through", I think they are always "exclusive".

Am I wrong?

Either way, if the info is ok, wouldn't be more logical that the "exclusive" would appear after the "fall-through"?

-- SafetyCar


You are right, there is no "fall-through" in Delphi / Pascal for "case" structure. I have removed the invalid block. This article was copied from somewhere by Narayan and I haven't actually verified it. In the last week I already corrected 2 major flows.

-- Den4b 03:40, 23 June 2011 (BST)


Ok, thanks for your reply. The discussion can be deleted if you want.

-- SafetyCar