Invisible wrote:
> I am 75% sure that the C64 would *automatically* indent your code. As 
> in, if you wrote a FOR-NEXT loop, the loop body would automatically 
> appear indented, and there was nothing you could do about it.

I had one, and I can guarantee that it didn't.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> I am 75% sure that the C64 would *automatically* indent your code. As 
>> in, if you wrote a FOR-NEXT loop, the loop body would automatically 
>> appear indented, and there was nothing you could do about it.
> 
> I had one, and I can guarantee that it didn't.

Screenshots or it didn't happen.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> > Invisible wrote:
> >> I am 75% sure that the C64 would *automatically* indent your code. As 
> >> in, if you wrote a FOR-NEXT loop, the loop body would automatically 
> >> appear indented, and there was nothing you could do about it.
> > 
> > I had one, and I can guarantee that it didn't.

> Screenshots or it didn't happen.

  GIYF.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Argh! Stupid newsreader segfaulting right before saving the message list,
> then on restart thinking the message wasn't sent yet and sending it again.

...... and again (QED).

Post a reply to this message

On 29-7-2009 5:46, Darren New wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>> you could do a "GOTO xyz" where xyz was a variable.
>>> What, ON GOTO and ON GOSUB weren't good enough for you? :-)
>>
>> What, no COMEFROM?
> 
> Actually, the problem with GOTO is not the GOTO, but the label. If you 
> added a COMEFROM, you'd actually have a much easier time figuring out 
> the code.
> 
The clasical comefrom has a syntax of "COMEFROM 110" and as soon as the 
program comes to line 110 it will continue the line after the comefrom.

see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMEFROM

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:51:23 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:

> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>>> "David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
>>>> A convenient excuse anyway. "Everybody needs someone to look down on.
>>>> If you ain't got nobody else, well help yo'self to me!" -Kris
>>>> Kristofferson (quoted from
>>>> memory) :)
>>> "Jesus was a capricorn"
>> 
>> "Capricorn, eh? What are they like?"
>> "He is the son of God, our Messiah! King of the Jews!" "And that's
>> capricorn, is it?"
>> 
>> 
> Well, I agree with the middle quote of the three. Of course whether He
> is a Capricorn in astrological terms depends on the date of His birth,
> which is disputed. Of course I doubt if that was what was meant. :)
> 
> David

Bill was quoting Monty Python there, just in case you're unfamiliar with 
The Life of Brian.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Bill was quoting Monty Python there, just in case you're unfamiliar with
> The Life of Brian.  :-)

Duh - and I didn't recognize it...

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:47:58 -0400, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Bill was quoting Monty Python there, just in case you're unfamiliar
>> with The Life of Brian.  :-)
> 
> Duh - and I didn't recognize it...

What does that say about both of us? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:51:23 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:
> 
>> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>>> "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>>>> "David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
>>>>> A convenient excuse anyway. "Everybody needs someone to look down on.
>>>>> If you ain't got nobody else, well help yo'self to me!" -Kris
>>>>> Kristofferson (quoted from
>>>>> memory) :)
>>>> "Jesus was a capricorn"
>>> "Capricorn, eh? What are they like?"
>>> "He is the son of God, our Messiah! King of the Jews!" "And that's
>>> capricorn, is it?"
>>>
>>>
>> Well, I agree with the middle quote of the three. Of course whether He
>> is a Capricorn in astrological terms depends on the date of His birth,
>> which is disputed. Of course I doubt if that was what was meant. :)
>>
>> David
> 
> Bill was quoting Monty Python there, just in case you're unfamiliar with 
> The Life of Brian.  :-)
> 
> Jim
Thanks, I'm familiar with "The Life of Brian" only by name. :)

David

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:04:59 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:

> Thanks, I'm familiar with "The Life of Brian" only by name. :)

No problem - very funny movie, at least for most people I know.  Oddly 
enough, the Pythons *claim* that they didn't intend it to be a religious 
spoof, it just 'turned out that way', but that claim to me seems highly 
suspect.... ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message