Post - Forum - Plus/4 World



	Home Search Games Tapes Covers Cheats Maps Software New Stuff Hall Of Fame HVTC Game Endings Solutions Remakes Publications Magazines Effects Top List Members Groups Features Plus/4 Encyclopedia Hardware Tools Options Forum Home Search Games Tapes Covers Cheats Maps Software New Stuff Hall Of Fame HVTC Game Endings Solutions Remakes Publications Magazines Effects Top List Members Groups Features Plus/4 Encyclopedia Hardware Tools Options Forum	Login

Forum Help

Post Your Message

Previous Messages

Posted By

czer
on 2017-05-24
01:18:06

Re: Default parameters in BOX command

Somehow, this topic came to my mind last night, and I realized that in today's techno bullshit driven marketing parlance it wouldn't be called oddity or bug, but context sensitive dynamic polymorphism instead.

P.S. Excuse me, Csabo, please. This don't double post rule is really underdeveloped. Is it really double posting if it is done more than a year after the last comment? Sorry again.

Posted By

gerliczer
on 2016-04-01
13:22:42

Re: Default parameters in BOX command

No, I wouldn't say it is a bug. And it is not odd at all. Maybe unintuitive or unexpected. Omitting the d parameter in itself means that you won't be declaring the size of the rectangle. Therefore the evaluation of parameters skips one stage. Or at least that's what I think.

Posted By

SVS
on 2016-04-01
11:52:13

Default parameters in BOX command

The syntax of the command is:
BOX a,b,c,d,e,f,g

Only the parameters b and c are obligatory, while all other is optional.
The odd thing, I've discovered, is that if you want to declare for example only b, c and f you have to left empty only one place: then BOX ,b,c,,f (instead of more logical BOX ,b,c,,,f).
Do you think it's a bug?