Re: Scope
Re: Scope
- Subject: Re: Scope
- From: Paul Berkowitz <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 10:48:58 -0800
[...continued...]
On 12/15/02 7:34 AM, "Paul Skinner" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
I tried very hard to follow this thread, I tried creating each of the
>
variations of all of the posted scripts, I tried various versions of
>
scripts for script 'B' before you posted anything defining it. I tried
>
analyzing what I thought you were trying to do. I failed.
>
When I couldn't follow the thread I asked you to post a simpler
>
version. This is just the way that I go about finding bugs. Unnecessary
>
parts of the script get chucked until there's nothing but essential
>
code left.
The scripts were schematic "diagrams" needed just to explain what was
happening. I think I did a pretty good job of boiling two 90K scripts down
to a few lines. They were not examples of the bug itself. I said over and
over again that short scripts did not error, and that even the full scripts
did not error OMM.
>
I feel like you might have taken my request as an insult. Your reply
>
seems a bit angry. I hope I can make it clear that I understand your
>
frustration and the difficulty involved in presenting a problem clearly
>
that you don't fully understand. If it was easy to present, then you'd
>
probably have resolved it long ago.
Unfortunately not. It's worse than that. Explaining it solves absolutely
nothing, since it's an erratic, non-replicable bug.
>
>
On Saturday, December 14, 2002, at 05:21 PM, I wrote:
>
> All the non-crucial variables, comments as to what would
>
> happen in some other non-posted script and anecdotal evidence are just
>
> camouflage.
>
>
When I wrote this I was referring to the loop, the unused Var
>
variables, and even to the code that loaded scripts B and C. Even
>
though loading scripts is necessary in your final code, here it
>
obsfucates the problem and makes for more difficult testing. You could
>
place all these scripts within explicit script blocks in one window and
>
test the same effect as loading them. If this isn't true then that is
>
helpful information too. (I can't test this due to the fact that the
>
code works for me regardless.)
I got rid of 99.99999% of the code. It could not be made any simpler than it
was. Emmanuel and has followed it because they've done a lot with complex
structures and much of this was already familiar to them. Without a previous
familiarity with these problems, I can well understand that it would be
almost impossible to follow what was going on. the very process of trying to
make it simple and short enough to present here strips it of most of its
context, making it that much harder to follow. I'm sure I couldn't have
followed it myself if I had never run into it. I'm impressed, and touched,
that you put so much effort into it. I'm afraid that to have made it more
cogent, I would have had write twice as much, not half as much. It could not
be made any simpler, and the effort to simplify is in fact what made it not
comprehensible to you. There are just too many factors involved to be able
to make it simpler.
>
<snip>
>
>
I hope I'm not pushing my luck or your buttons when I ask if you can
>
post a script that Will produce the error reliably now?
No, I can't. If I ever discover a minimalized version, I'll send you two
scripts to illustrate it. Otherwise, if I ever see a post here that seems to
have run into this bug (or to a mysterious "0" in an error message where no
integers are involved), I'll know what to suggest.
--
Paul Berkowitz
_______________________________________________
applescript-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
| References: | |
| | >Re: Scope (From: Paul Skinner <email@hidden>) |