Is there any reason whatsoever anymore to use CHAIN instead of CHAIN3? If not... should CHAIN3 just become synonymous with CHAIN? Or is there a "compiler overheat" reason to still want to use CHAIN when conditions are not required?
CHAIN3: Totally supercedes CHAIN?
Started by
-jcompton-
, Aug 05 2002 09:23 PM
2 replies to this topic
#1 -jcompton-
Posted 05 August 2002 - 09:23 PM
#2
Posted 05 August 2002 - 09:36 PM
Jason, you win the "shrink the compiler award" for the evening. Yes, CHAIN is completely supplanted by CHAIN3. I have removed CHAIN and made the chain keyword behave just like CHAIN3 behind your back.
The reason they were both there is that I have this legacy problem: I cannot make anything that used to parse fail to parse (or someone yells at me). I failed to notice that the chain3 syntax was already backwards compat.
Thanks for the heads-up.
The reason they were both there is that I have this legacy problem: I cannot make anything that used to parse fail to parse (or someone yells at me). I failed to notice that the chain3 syntax was already backwards compat.
Thanks for the heads-up.
#3 -jcompton-
Posted 05 August 2002 - 10:32 PM
Oh, I'm all in favor of not breaking old code, believe me. (Although we did get over APPEND->APPENDI and CHAIN->CHAIN2--after all, yours was the only released mod at the time--I'd rather not repeat if possible.)The reason they were both there is that I have this legacy problem: I cannot make anything that used to parse fail to parse (or someone yells at me). I failed to notice that the chain3 syntax was already backwards compat.
Thanks for the heads-up.
Glad to be of service.