Hi!
I'm quite new to Amber. Tried to get into it for several times, but never found the real entry point. But now I'm hooked. It's amazing and I'm really very pleased about the current quality of the tools and debugger. It's still quite difficult for me to debug the js part, or to find out why certain instance variables are nil and not like expected filled,... but with a little training this can just get better ;-) Great work Amber team! But there's one question I can't answer myself. I have a js loop I like/need to reimplement. It looks like this: for(int d=1<<--dd; d>0; d>>=1){...} So, I thought I try to implement a new do: method like this: ddDo: dd with: aBlock <for(int d=1<<--dd; d>0; d>>=1){aBlock(d);}> The compiler will now complain that d>0 and d>>=1 aren't right. So I try to escape the ">" and try to save it like this: ddDo: dd with: aBlock <for(int d=1<<--dd; d>>0; d>>>>=1){aBlock(self[d]);}> But nothing happens. Neither does a "save" bring the debugger up, not does a "commit" write the source down. It just all get's lost on a page reload.... Does anyone have an idea about this one? By the way. Since Stefan Krecher had a look at processing and why my attempts didn't run and fixed that (thank you Stefan), I published my "initial" "amber-processingJS" API Layer on github. So if you would like to write samples or extend it, you are very welcome! It's under heavy development and refactoring, for I also just started with Amber and will collect a lot of new experiences and ideas I guess it won't stay the way it is right now. Thanks for the help! Sebastian |
Hi! Could you write a bug entry on github for it please? Also, which compiler (or version of Amber) are you using? Cheers, nico HCSebastian <[hidden email]> writes: > Hi! > > I'm quite new to Amber. Tried to get into it for several times, but never > found the real entry point. But now I'm hooked. It's amazing and I'm really > very pleased about the current quality of the tools and debugger. > It's still quite difficult for me to debug the js part, or to find out why > certain instance variables are nil and not like expected filled,... but > with a little training this can just get better ;-) > > Great work Amber team! > > But there's one question I can't answer myself. > > I have a js loop I like/need to reimplement. > It looks like this: > > for(int d=1<<--dd; d>0; d>>=1){...} > > So, I thought I try to implement a new do: method like this: > > ddDo: dd with: aBlock > <for(int d=1<<--dd; d>0; d>>=1){aBlock(d);}> > > The compiler will now complain that d>0 and d>>=1 aren't right. > > So I try to escape the ">" and try to save it like this: > > ddDo: dd with: aBlock > <for(int d=1<<--dd; d>>0; d>>>>=1){aBlock(self[d]);}> > > But nothing happens. Neither does a "save" bring the debugger up, not does > a "commit" write the source down. It just all get's lost on a page > reload.... > > Does anyone have an idea about this one? > > > By the way. Since Stefan Krecher had a look at processing and why my > attempts didn't run and fixed that (thank you Stefan), I published my > "initial" "amber-processingJS" API Layer on github. So if you would like to > write samples or extend it, you are very welcome! It's under heavy > development and refactoring, for I also just started with Amber and will > collect a lot of new experiences and ideas I guess it won't stay the way it > is right now. > > Thanks for the help! > Sebastian Nicolas Petton http://nicolas-petton.fr |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |