#144907 - 2005-08-05 07:06 PM
Re: Break On should be the deafult
|
jtokach
Seasoned Scripter
Registered: 2001-11-15
Posts: 513
Loc: PA, USA
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#144908 - 2005-08-05 07:10 PM
Re: Break On should be the deafult
|
Bryce
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-02-29
Posts: 3167
Loc: Houston TX
|
Quote:
Hence the reason for this now! I've done this four times in the past two days. Between running other people's code, running dynamically generated code and trying to get ultraedit to work with kix32 /d, I've had it. (BTW, I found that if you keep Word open with even a modified blank file, during the forced shutdown Word will prompt to save the file. Click Cancel to maintain some diginity and only have to reopen about half of your programs.)
notepad, with changes that need to be saved will do the same
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#144910 - 2005-08-05 08:55 PM
Re: Break On should be the deafult
|
jtokach
Seasoned Scripter
Registered: 2001-11-15
Posts: 513
Loc: PA, USA
|
I'd argue that Break On is different from NoVars and Explicit in that it's an interpreter environmental directive rather than an interpreter processing directive. (or something like that) In other words, it has no impact on the way code is written or interpreted. Whether or not this is ON or OFF by default wouldn't affect any of the kix code in existance today whereas NoVars and Explict could have a significant impact.
Infact, compared to the setoption()'s, the Break directive is implemented by default, whereas the others need to be turned on to implement their respective action. If this command were SetOption(Break,[On|Off]), the command would be reversed where SetOption(Break,On) would cause a logoff on interuption. By that logic, it's default state would be SetOption(Break,Off) where interuptions would not cause a logoff.
_________________________
-Jim
...the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#144916 - 2005-08-09 11:18 AM
Re: Break On should be the deafult
|
NTDOC
Administrator
Registered: 2000-07-28
Posts: 11623
Loc: CA
|
Quote:
No, you don't understand
Yes Jim I do understand, but was addressing a pun towards Shawn not your original request.
As to your request, sorry I don't agree with you. Yes I've been biten many times in the past by a few of the coders around here that love to turn it off, or hide the console or other behaviors that I don't care for, but I've learned to check and or code for it before ever trying their code.
Please do not take this personal as it is not meant to be, but as I see it changing the DEFAULT behavior of a program now used by 10's of thousands of users around the World in many even non English languages becuase 1 person is unable to adapt their coding behavior is a very poor reason for changing it.
That being said, I think perhaps Richard as usual has some good possible solutions that would accomodate both you and all the other users out there that don't have or experience the issue you describe.
As for Microsoft not sticking to standards, AMEN, but as you mention - 2 wrongs don't make a right. Microsoft though does go through a lot effort with many user groups when decisions are made that are going to affect all types of users (I know as I've participated in some of these groups in the past) They try to decide what is best for ALL users as they see it, which does not always make everyone happy - myself included.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#144919 - 2005-08-09 04:25 PM
Re: Break On should be the deafult
|
Richard H.
Administrator
Registered: 2000-01-24
Posts: 4946
Loc: Leatherhead, Surrey, UK
|
Quote:
The reg hack is a really REALLY bad idea. With that, anyone could hack themself the ability to subvert the completion of a script. BAD IDEA!
You have a very good point, though it's not iredeemably bad. The hack sets the default - if the script has "BREAK OFF" explicitly set then it cannot be subverted.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Lonkero, ShaneEP, Jochen, Radimus, Glenn Barnas, Allen, Ruud van Velsen, Mart
|
0 registered
and 557 anonymous users online.
|
|
|