Jump to content


CHAIN3: Totally supercedes CHAIN?


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 -jcompton-

-jcompton-
  • Guest

Posted 05 August 2002 - 09:23 PM

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?

#2 weimer

weimer
  • Member
  • 1569 posts

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.

#3 -jcompton-

-jcompton-
  • Guest

Posted 05 August 2002 - 10:32 PM

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.

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.)

Glad to be of service.