Undo Output Control by Erik Temple steps on #undef from 6.3.3 compiler

[andrewschultz]

I don't know if it is practical to do anything to fix this, but ... in Undo Output Control, the user is allowed to specify new words for "undo" and "oops." This gets in the way of code such as

Include (-

	#Undef OOPS1__WD;
	Constant OOPS1__WD = 'o//';
	#Undef OOPS2__WD;
	Constant OOPS2__WD = 'o//';
	#Undef OOPS3__WD;
	Constant OOPS3__WD = 'o//';

-) after "Language.i6t".

Which is simpler, and it's usable for compiler version 6.3.3 and above. (We are at 6.3.6, but 6.3.3 has been around for years.)

Though this was a very forward-thinking thing for Erik to do, and it provided immediate flexibility, he couldn't look into the future and see #Undefs. The result was, I couldn't figure how/why the OOPS word was still enabled in Ailihphilia.

My test case was that I 1) set AGAIN1__WD etc. elsewhere and 2) assumed the same would work for OOPS1_WD (it works fine without this extension and seems like a better general approach.)

So is it worth upgrading Undo Output Control to note this? Should we assume that people have/want the latest compiler version? Is there a way we can/should document things so other people are less likely to run into the same dead end I did?

The code in question would be

To decide which value is undo word #1:
	(- 'undo' -)
	
To decide which value is undo word #2:
	(- 'undo' -)
	
To decide which value is undo word #3:
	(- 'undo' -)
	
To decide which value is oops word #1:
	(- 'oops' -)

To decide which value is oops word #2:
	(- 'o//' -)
	
To decide which value is oops word #3:
	(- 'oops' -)

And changing "undo word #1" in the code to UNDO__W1, etc.

[neroden]

I'm pretty sure it's feasible. I am enmeshed in an entirely different programming project and can't do it myself right now, but after the last time I tore apart Undo Output Control and put it back together, I'm pretty sure it's feasible.

…

On Sun, Mar 6, 2022, at 7:07 AM, Andrew Schultz wrote: I don't know if it is practical to do anything to fix this, but ... in Undo Output Control, the user is allowed to specify new words for "undo" and "oops." This gets in the way of code such as ``` Include (- #Undef OOPS1__WD; Constant OOPS1__WD = 'o//'; #Undef OOPS2__WD; Constant OOPS2__WD = 'o//'; #Undef OOPS3__WD; Constant OOPS3__WD = 'o//'; -) after "Language.i6t". ``` Which is simpler, and it's usable for compiler version 6.3.3 and above. (We are at 6.3.6, but 6.3.3 has been around for years.) Though this was a very forward-thinking thing for Erik to do, and it provided immediate flexibility, he couldn't look into the future and see #Undefs. The result was, I couldn't figure how/why the OOPS word was still enabled in Ailihphilia. My test case was that I 1) set AGAIN1__WD etc. elsewhere and 2) assumed the same would work for OOPS1_WD (it works fine without this extension and seems like a better general approach.) So is it worth upgrading Undo Output Control to note this? Should we assume that people have/want the latest compiler version? Is there a way we can/should document things so other people are less likely to run into the same dead end I did? The code in question would be ``` To decide which value is undo word #1: (- 'undo' -) To decide which value is undo word #2: (- 'undo' -) To decide which value is undo word #3: (- 'undo' -) To decide which value is oops word #1: (- 'oops' -) To decide which value is oops word #2: (- 'o//' -) To decide which value is oops word #3: (- 'oops' -) ``` And changing "`undo word #1`" in the code to UNDO__W1, etc. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #77 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: ***@***.***>

[neroden]

Solved during my update of Undo Output Control for Inform v10. Basically I removed the old Undo Output Control mechanism and told people to use the most modern method (which isn't actually #Undef any more, it's "replacing"... it's in the docs for the extension). This is now on the 'master' branch and I am working on getting it pushed into the 10.1 branch.

[neroden]

Um, I'm not sure why that didn't close this issue. Trying again.