Talk:ReNamer:Pascal Script:Quick guide: Difference between revisions
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...") |
No edit summary |
||
| 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 | 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 | 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) | |||
Revision as of 04:40, 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)