Thanks in advance. I couldn't find the answers to my questions at
either lassotech.com or http://docs9.lassosoft.com/lasso9/LassoReference/
or http://docs9.lassosoft.com/Lasso%209%20Server/index.lasso so I'm
asking the list.

I'm finally going through my Lasso 8.5 Cookbook code on Lasso 9 and
have a couple of questions, mainly is there a place to find all the
Lasso 9 syntax, like the Lasso 8.5 reference at http://reference.lassosoft.com/Reference.LassoApp?lassoscript/basics
?


For example:

1. Are variable_set and encode_set and -encodeNone not in Lasso 9? I
get errors if they're on a page. Is there a replacement?

2. Why does var:'x' = 3.0 display as 3.0 in Lasso 8.5 but as 3.000000
in Lasso 9?

3. Why does var:'aDate' = date display as 07/27/2010 15:49:24 in Lasso
8.5 but as 2010-07-27 15:49:24 in Lasso 9?

4. Why does locals->find:'Something' not work? Does [Locals] no
longer exist? What's the replacement? Is there one?
variables->find:'Something' also doesn't work (gives an error).

5. Has something changed with Sessions? I have a very simple 2 page
example where I create a session and add a var on p1 and start the
session and view the var on p2 which works in Lasso 8.5 but gives an
error (can't find the variable) in Lasso 9.

Here's what I'm using for Session Start:
Session_Start: -Name='TestSession', -Expires=15, -UseLink;


6. When I try to pass an array thru a form and retrieve it like this:

[var:'ThisArray' = (action_param:'ThisArray')]
[if: $ThisArray != '' ]
[$ThisArray->unserialize:decompress:decode_base64:($ThisArray)]
[/if]

I get the error message: Error Code: -9948 Error Msg: Definition Not
Found: string->unserialize(bytes)
What's changed?


7. This doesn't work anymore. What's the replacement?

The error is:
Error Msg: Definition Not Found: Field_Name(-count=boolean) Candidates
were: Field_Name(count::boolean =?)

The code is:
[inline:
-database='test',
-layout='testExport',
-maxRecords='all',
-show]
[Loop:(Field_Name:-Count)]
[/Loop]
[/inline]


8. What's the new way to do an include with protect, handle and
fail_if tags?

9. What's new the syntax for include with lassoapp_link?

10. How do I rewrite this for Lasso 9:

Loop:(String_RemoveLeading:(String_RemoveTrailing:$fusebox-
>(Find:'currentPath'),-Pattern='/'),-Pattern='/')->(Split:'/')->Size;


11. is $myarray->Remove still valid in Lasso 9? If not what's the new
syntax? $myarray->Remove($myarray->Size) ?

Again, thanks in advance.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It's better to burn out than to fade away."

Tami Williams
Creative Computing
Let us help you make frustrating, costly, and inefficient processes
more efficient, less costly and scalable.
FileMaker and Lasso specialists.

Tel: 770.457.3221
Fax: 770.454.7419
E-Mail: info@[Protected]
Web: http://www.asktami.com/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/asktami
Twitter: http://twitter.com/asktami
iChat/AIM/Skype: tamiwilliamsusa

FileMaker Solutions Alliance Associate | Lasso Professional Alliance
Member

------

If you want to receive sporadic email from Creative Computing
regarding news at the company and announcements about upcoming Lasso
webinars and online classes, please opt-in at http://tinyurl.com/yj7eqlg

On 7/28/10 at 2:09 AM, tami@[Protected] (Tami Williams) pronounced:

>I'm finally going through my Lasso 8.5 Cookbook code on Lasso 9
>and have a couple of questions, mainly is there a place to find
>all the Lasso 9 syntax, like the Lasso 8.5 reference at http://reference.lassosoft.com/Reference.LassoApp?lassoscript/basics?

There is a skeleton with a bit of gristle:
http://docs9.lassosoft.com/lasso9/LassoReference/

For most of the changes between 8 and 9:
http://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/What-Has-Changed.html#list-of-differences

The latter uses a GUI editor in the wiki, instead of wiki
syntax, so it is easy to edit. Comments and contributions to
the content are most welcome.

--steve

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- --
Steve Piercy Web Site Builder
Soquel, CA
<web@[Protected]> <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>

On 28.07.2010, at 08:09, Tami Williams wrote:

> 1. Are variable_set and encode_set and -encodeNone not in Lasso 9? I get errors if they're on a page. Is there a replacement?

variable_set, see: http://reference.lassosoft.com/Reference.LassoApp?lassoscript/browse

It lists the support as deprecated, and suggests using [var] instead.

I ran into the same with recordid_value the other day, which is now deprecated (and listed as such in the 8.5 reference). The replacement is keyfield_value.

I don't see encode_set in the L9 reference, not sure if there is a replacement other than applying the encoding to any strings you want to output. Eg. in the 8.5 reference, you can do encodehtml like so:

[Encode_Set, -encodehtml]
[Output: '<br>These HTML values will be displayed as HTML']
[/Encode_Set]

In L9, you can just do:

['<br>These HTML values will be displayed as HTML'->encodehtml]

EncodeNone doesn't apply any encoding, so just leave out ->encodeX, it's the default.

Here's the list of encoding methods in L9: http://docs9.lassosoft.com/lasso9/LassoReference/?-f=encode

> 2. Why does var:'x' = 3.0 display as 3.0 in Lasso 8.5 but as 3.000000 in Lasso 9?

Lasso 9 displays the decimal type to 6 decimal places by default, you can change this like so:

[var:'x' = 3.0]
[$x->asstring(-precision=1)]

The equivalent in 8.5 (to display with 6 decimal places):

[var:'x' = 3.0]
[$x->setformat(-precision=6)]
[$x]

Not sure if/how you could change the default number of decimal places shown. That would be nice. 8.5 seems to just display as many decimal places as were specified when the variable was defined, which is definitely different behavior to L9. I don't know if it's possible to replicate 8.5's behavior.

> 3. Why does var:'aDate' = date display as 07/27/2010 15:49:24 in Lasso 8.5 but as 2010-07-27 15:49:24 in Lasso 9?

Again, different defaults in L9. I guess the lesson here is to always specify how you want your data output, and not rely on defaults. This seems good practice to me, and these changes probably will only affect US based customers, as I don't think anyone else in the world likes seeing the month before the day :-)

L9 syntax to achieve 8.5 default formatting: [$aDate->format('%D %T')]

> 4. Why does locals->find:'Something' not work? Does [Locals] no longer exist? What's the replacement? Is there one?
> variables->find:'Something' also doesn't work (gives an error).

Looks to me like they're not implemented in L9. I don't know what you would use instead, I don't think I've ever used these tags (but then, I'm not a very advanced coder...)

> 5. Has something changed with Sessions? I have a very simple 2 page example where I create a session and add a var on p1 and start the session and view the var on p2 which works in Lasso 8.5 but gives an error (can't find the variable) in Lasso 9.
>
> Here's what I'm using for Session Start:
> Session_Start: -Name='TestSession', -Expires=15, -UseLink;

As far as I know session in L9 are basically the same as in L8. This seems to work fine for me:

<?lasso
session_start(-name='test', -expires=15, -uselink);
if(var_defined('x'));
'Var X is '+$x;
else;
var('x') = 123;
'Var X set.'
/if;
session_addvar(-name='test', 'x');
?>

> 6. When I try to pass an array thru a form and retrieve it like this:

Don't know about this one.

> 7. This doesn't work anymore. What's the replacement?
>
> The error is:
> Error Msg: Definition Not Found: Field_Name(-count=boolean) Candidates were: Field_Name(count::boolean =?)
>
> The code is:
> [inline:
> -database='test',
> -layout='testExport',
> -maxRecords='all',
> -show]
> [Loop:(Field_Name:-Count)]
> [/Loop]
> [/inline]

You're trying to get a list of the field names?

[inline: ..., -show]
[iterate(field_names, var('name'))]
[$name]
[/iterate]
[/inline]

> 8. What's the new way to do an include with protect, handle and fail_if tags?

Can you give an example from 8.5? I'm not sure, but I thought these tags were the same in L9.

> 9. What's new the syntax for include with lassoapp_link?

Don't know much about LassoApps, in 8.5 or 9... looks like there are some docs available here: http://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Web-Apps-Lasso-Apps.html

> 10. How do I rewrite this for Lasso 9:
>
> Loop:(String_RemoveLeading:(String_RemoveTrailing:$fusebox->(Find:'currentPath'),-Pattern='/'),-Pattern='/')->(Split:'/')->Size;

OTOH I would guess something like:

loop( $fusebox->find('currentpath')->removeleading('/')->removetrailing('/')->split('/')->size );

> 11. is $myarray->Remove still valid in Lasso 9? If not what's the new syntax? $myarray->Remove($myarray->Size) ?

Seems still valid:

[var('x') = array(1='one', 2='two', 3='three')]
[$x->remove(2)]
[$x]

-> array((1 = one), (3 = three))

--
Chris Wik
Anu Internet Services Ltd

Chris had an excellent response, here's a little more to add.
But, before I begin, I must recommend you use parentheses syntax instead of colon syntax.

On Jul 28, 2010, at 2:09 AM, Tami Williams wrote:

> 1. Are variable_set and encode_set and -encodeNone not in Lasso 9? I get errors if they're on a page. Is there a replacement?
>
> 2. Why does var:'x' = 3.0 display as 3.0 in Lasso 8.5 but as 3.000000 in Lasso 9?

In Lasso 8.5, the format would stay with the Decimal. You could change that format using ->setFormat and the new format would stay with the decimal. In Lasso 9, the string formatting of a decimal is not stored with the decimal, but can be determined by you using the ->asString() function like Chris showed.


> 3. Why does var:'aDate' = date display as 07/27/2010 15:49:24 in Lasso 8.5 but as 2010-07-27 15:49:24 in Lasso 9?
>
> 4. Why does locals->find:'Something' not work? Does [Locals] no longer exist? What's the replacement? Is there one?
> variables->find:'Something' also doesn't work (gives an error).

With the removal of dynamic locals, I'd be surprised if locals->find() would be possible for the language to do. Since you can still have dynamic vars, this [variables] might be able to be implemented, you could send a request and see what they say.


> 5. Has something changed with Sessions? I have a very simple 2 page example where I create a session and add a var on p1 and start the session and view the var on p2 which works in Lasso 8.5 but gives an error (can't find the variable) in Lasso 9.
>
> Here's what I'm using for Session Start:
> Session_Start: -Name='TestSession', -Expires=15, -UseLink;

I'm not seeing an error either. This looks like something to further troubleshoot. I'd start a separate thread with details about how you've installed Lasso 9, the OS you're using, etc.


> 6. When I try to pass an array thru a form and retrieve it like this:
>
> [var:'ThisArray' = (action_param:'ThisArray')]
> [if: $ThisArray != '' ]
> [$ThisArray->unserialize:decompress:decode_base64:($ThisArray)]
> [/if]
>
> I get the error message: Error Code: -9948 Error Msg: Definition Not Found: string->unserialize(bytes)
> What's changed?

I'm not familiar with this syntax "unserialize:decompress:decode_base64:", but it looks like the issue might be that decode_base64 is returning a bytes type instead of a string type.


> 7. This doesn't work anymore. What's the replacement?
>
> The error is:
> Error Msg: Definition Not Found: Field_Name(-count=boolean) Candidates were: Field_Name(count::boolean =?)
>
> The code is:
> [inline:
> -database='test',
> -layout='testExport',
> -maxRecords='all',
> -show]
> [Loop:(Field_Name:-Count)]
> [/Loop]
> [/inline]

Interesting. It looks like it does exist. What happens if you put this in paren syntax [Loop(Field_Name(-Count))]? If that doesn't work, what happens when you do [Loop(Field_Name(-Count=True))]? When you do [Loop(Field_Name(True))]?


> 8. What's the new way to do an include with protect, handle and fail_if tags?

Not entirely sure what you're asking here, but all your [handle] tags, including [handle_error] need to be at the top of the [protect] block.


> 9. What's new the syntax for include with lassoapp_link?
>
> 10. How do I rewrite this for Lasso 9:
>
> Loop:(String_RemoveLeading:(String_RemoveTrailing:$fusebox->(Find:'currentPath'),-Pattern='/'),-Pattern='/')->(Split:'/')->Size;

I don't think you can use -Pattern=, just put the pattern in. I've found that Lasso 9 removes the need to use named parameters for parameters that are required. The following isn't tested, but should work:

Loop(String_RemoveLeading(String_RemoveTrailing($fusebox->Find('currentPath'), '/'), '/')->Split('/')->Size);


> 11. is $myarray->Remove still valid in Lasso 9? If not what's the new syntax? $myarray->Remove($myarray->Size) ?

Also not seeing an issue here.
This:
<?=
var('test') = array(1,2,3,4,5)
$test->remove
$test
?>
Produces: array(1, 2, 3, 4)


Brad

Thanks for the help. How did you find the answer to stuff like #2? I
searched for decimal and format and I can't find the answer you gave.

Thanks again.


On Jul 28, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Chris Wik wrote:

> On 28.07.2010, at 08:09, Tami Williams wrote:
>
>> 1. Are variable_set and encode_set and -encodeNone not in Lasso 9?
>> I get errors if they're on a page. Is there a replacement?
>
> variable_set, see: http://reference.lassosoft.com/Reference.LassoApp?lassoscript/browse
>
> It lists the support as deprecated, and suggests using [var] instead.
>
> I ran into the same with recordid_value the other day, which is now
> deprecated (and listed as such in the 8.5 reference). The
> replacement is keyfield_value.
>
> I don't see encode_set in the L9 reference, not sure if there is a
> replacement other than applying the encoding to any strings you want
> to output. Eg. in the 8.5 reference, you can do encodehtml like so:
>
> [Encode_Set, -encodehtml]
> [Output: '<br>These HTML values will be displayed as HTML']
> [/Encode_Set]
>
> In L9, you can just do:
>
> ['<br>These HTML values will be displayed as HTML'->encodehtml]
>
> EncodeNone doesn't apply any encoding, so just leave out ->encodeX,
> it's the default.
>
> Here's the list of encoding methods in L9: http://docs9.lassosoft.com/lasso9/LassoReference/?-f=encode
>
>> 2. Why does var:'x' = 3.0 display as 3.0 in Lasso 8.5 but as
>> 3.000000 in Lasso 9?
>
> Lasso 9 displays the decimal type to 6 decimal places by default,
> you can change this like so:
>
> [var:'x' = 3.0]
> [$x->asstring(-precision=1)]
>
> The equivalent in 8.5 (to display with 6 decimal places):
>
> [var:'x' = 3.0]
> [$x->setformat(-precision=6)]
> [$x]
>
> Not sure if/how you could change the default number of decimal
> places shown. That would be nice. 8.5 seems to just display as many
> decimal places as were specified when the variable was defined,
> which is definitely different behavior to L9. I don't know if it's
> possible to replicate 8.5's behavior.
>
>> 3. Why does var:'aDate' = date display as 07/27/2010 15:49:24 in
>> Lasso 8.5 but as 2010-07-27 15:49:24 in Lasso 9?
>
> Again, different defaults in L9. I guess the lesson here is to
> always specify how you want your data output, and not rely on
> defaults. This seems good practice to me, and these changes probably
> will only affect US based customers, as I don't think anyone else in
> the world likes seeing the month before the day :-)
>
> L9 syntax to achieve 8.5 default formatting: [$aDate->format('%D %T')]
>
>> 4. Why does locals->find:'Something' not work? Does [Locals] no
>> longer exist? What's the replacement? Is there one?
>> variables->find:'Something' also doesn't work (gives an error).
>
> Looks to me like they're not implemented in L9. I don't know what
> you would use instead, I don't think I've ever used these tags (but
> then, I'm not a very advanced coder...)
>
>> 5. Has something changed with Sessions? I have a very simple 2
>> page example where I create a session and add a var on p1 and start
>> the session and view the var on p2 which works in Lasso 8.5 but
>> gives an error (can't find the variable) in Lasso 9.
>>
>> Here's what I'm using for Session Start:
>> Session_Start: -Name='TestSession', -Expires=15, -UseLink;
>
> As far as I know session in L9 are basically the same as in L8. This
> seems to work fine for me:
>
> <?lasso
> session_start(-name='test', -expires=15, -uselink);
> if(var_defined('x'));
> 'Var X is '+$x;
> else;
> var('x') = 123;
> 'Var X set.'
> /if;
> session_addvar(-name='test', 'x');
> ?>
>
>> 6. When I try to pass an array thru a form and retrieve it like this:
>
> Don't know about this one.
>
>> 7. This doesn't work anymore. What's the replacement?
>>
>> The error is:
>> Error Msg: Definition Not Found: Field_Name(-count=boolean)
>> Candidates were: Field_Name(count::boolean =?)
>>
>> The code is:
>> [inline:
>> -database='test',
>> -layout='testExport',
>> -maxRecords='all',
>> -show]
>> [Loop:(Field_Name:-Count)]
>> [/Loop]
>> [/inline]
>
> You're trying to get a list of the field names?
>
> [inline: ..., -show]
> [iterate(field_names, var('name'))]
> [$name]
> [/iterate]
> [/inline]
>
>> 8. What's the new way to do an include with protect, handle and
>> fail_if tags?
>
> Can you give an example from 8.5? I'm not sure, but I thought these
> tags were the same in L9.
>
>> 9. What's new the syntax for include with lassoapp_link?
>
> Don't know much about LassoApps, in 8.5 or 9... looks like there are
> some docs available here: http://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Web-Apps-Lasso-Apps.html
>
>> 10. How do I rewrite this for Lasso 9:
>>
>> Loop:(String_RemoveLeading:(String_RemoveTrailing:$fusebox-
>> >(Find:'currentPath'),-Pattern='/'),-Pattern='/')->(Split:'/')->Size;
>
> OTOH I would guess something like:
>
> loop( $fusebox->find('currentpath')->removeleading('/')-
> >removetrailing('/')->split('/')->size );
>
>> 11. is $myarray->Remove still valid in Lasso 9? If not what's the
>> new syntax? $myarray->Remove($myarray->Size) ?
>
> Seems still valid:
>
> [var('x') = array(1='one', 2='two', 3='three')]
> [$x->remove(2)]
> [$x]
>
> -> array((1 = one), (3 = three))
>
> --
> Chris Wik
> Anu Internet Services Ltd

Here is the L9 reference entry for decimal, you'll see there the asString method: http://docs9.lassosoft.com/lasso9/LassoReference/type_view.html?-f=decimal

If something doesn't work as expected the L9 reference is probably the first place to start, to check if the syntax has changed.

If you have some complex code that's not functioning as expected, I suggest trying each block of code or even each tag individually so you can pinpoint the problem. Eg. here:

Loop:(String_RemoveLeading:(String_RemoveTrailing:$fusebox->(Find:'currentPath'),-Pattern='/'),-Pattern='/')->(Split:'/')->Size;

you could look up/test out loop, string_removeleading, string_removetrailing, array->find, string->split, and array->size one by one to make sure they're all returning what you expect them to.

Chris


On 28.07.2010, at 23:41, Tami Williams wrote:

> Thanks for the help. How did you find the answer to stuff like #2? I searched for decimal and format and I can't find the answer you gave.
>
> Thanks again.
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Chris Wik wrote:
>
>> On 28.07.2010, at 08:09, Tami Williams wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Are variable_set and encode_set and -encodeNone not in Lasso 9? I get errors if they're on a page. Is there a replacement?
>>
>> variable_set, see: http://reference.lassosoft.com/Reference.LassoApp?lassoscript/browse
>>
>> It lists the support as deprecated, and suggests using [var] instead.
>>
>> I ran into the same with recordid_value the other day, which is now deprecated (and listed as such in the 8.5 reference). The replacement is keyfield_value.
>>
>> I don't see encode_set in the L9 reference, not sure if there is a replacement other than applying the encoding to any strings you want to output. Eg. in the 8.5 reference, you can do encodehtml like so:
>>
>> [Encode_Set, -encodehtml]
>> [Output: '<br>These HTML values will be displayed as HTML']
>> [/Encode_Set]
>>
>> In L9, you can just do:
>>
>> ['<br>These HTML values will be displayed as HTML'->encodehtml]
>>
>> EncodeNone doesn't apply any encoding, so just leave out ->encodeX, it's the default.
>>
>> Here's the list of encoding methods in L9: http://docs9.lassosoft.com/lasso9/LassoReference/?-f=encode
>>
>>> 2. Why does var:'x' = 3.0 display as 3.0 in Lasso 8.5 but as 3.000000 in Lasso 9?
>>
>> Lasso 9 displays the decimal type to 6 decimal places by default, you can change this like so:
>>
>> [var:'x' = 3.0]
>> [$x->asstring(-precision=1)]
>>
>> The equivalent in 8.5 (to display with 6 decimal places):
>>
>> [var:'x' = 3.0]
>> [$x->setformat(-precision=6)]
>> [$x]
>>
>> Not sure if/how you could change the default number of decimal places shown. That would be nice. 8.5 seems to just display as many decimal places as were specified when the variable was defined, which is definitely different behavior to L9. I don't know if it's possible to replicate 8.5's behavior.
>>
>>> 3. Why does var:'aDate' = date display as 07/27/2010 15:49:24 in Lasso 8.5 but as 2010-07-27 15:49:24 in Lasso 9?
>>
>> Again, different defaults in L9. I guess the lesson here is to always specify how you want your data output, and not rely on defaults. This seems good practice to me, and these changes probably will only affect US based customers, as I don't think anyone else in the world likes seeing the month before the day :-)
>>
>> L9 syntax to achieve 8.5 default formatting: [$aDate->format('%D %T')]
>>
>>> 4. Why does locals->find:'Something' not work? Does [Locals] no longer exist? What's the replacement? Is there one?
>>> variables->find:'Something' also doesn't work (gives an error).
>>
>> Looks to me like they're not implemented in L9. I don't know what you would use instead, I don't think I've ever used these tags (but then, I'm not a very advanced coder...)
>>
>>> 5. Has something changed with Sessions? I have a very simple 2 page example where I create a session and add a var on p1 and start the session and view the var on p2 which works in Lasso 8.5 but gives an error (can't find the variable) in Lasso 9.
>>>
>>> Here's what I'm using for Session Start:
>>> Session_Start: -Name='TestSession', -Expires=15, -UseLink;
>>
>> As far as I know session in L9 are basically the same as in L8. This seems to work fine for me:
>>
>> <?lasso
>> session_start(-name='test', -expires=15, -uselink);
>> if(var_defined('x'));
>> 'Var X is '+$x;
>> else;
>> var('x') = 123;
>> 'Var X set.'
>> /if;
>> session_addvar(-name='test', 'x');
>> ?>
>>
>>> 6. When I try to pass an array thru a form and retrieve it like this:
>>
>> Don't know about this one.
>>
>>> 7. This doesn't work anymore. What's the replacement?
>>>
>>> The error is:
>>> Error Msg: Definition Not Found: Field_Name(-count=boolean) Candidates were: Field_Name(count::boolean =?)
>>>
>>> The code is:
>>> [inline:
>>> -database='test',
>>> -layout='testExport',
>>> -maxRecords='all',
>>> -show]
>>> [Loop:(Field_Name:-Count)]
>>> [/Loop]
>>> [/inline]
>>
>> You're trying to get a list of the field names?
>>
>> [inline: ..., -show]
>> [iterate(field_names, var('name'))]
>> [$name]
>> [/iterate]
>> [/inline]
>>
>>> 8. What's the new way to do an include with protect, handle and fail_if tags?
>>
>> Can you give an example from 8.5? I'm not sure, but I thought these tags were the same in L9.
>>
>>> 9. What's new the syntax for include with lassoapp_link?
>>
>> Don't know much about LassoApps, in 8.5 or 9... looks like there are some docs available here: http://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Web-Apps-Lasso-Apps.html
>>
>>> 10. How do I rewrite this for Lasso 9:
>>>
>>> Loop:(String_RemoveLeading:(String_RemoveTrailing:$fusebox->(Find:'currentPath'),-Pattern='/'),-Pattern='/')->(Split:'/')->Size;
>>
>> OTOH I would guess something like:
>>
>> loop( $fusebox->find('currentpath')->removeleading('/')->removetrailing('/')->split('/')->size );
>>
>>> 11. is $myarray->Remove still valid in Lasso 9? If not what's the new syntax? $myarray->Remove($myarray->Size) ?
>>
>> Seems still valid:
>>
>> [var('x') = array(1='one', 2='two', 3='three')]
>> [$x->remove(2)]
>> [$x]
>>
>> -> array((1 = one), (3 = three))
>>
>> --
>> Chris Wik
>> Anu Internet Services Ltd

You could always do something like:

define decimal->asPrice(currency::string='£',precision::integer=2) =>
{ return #currency + .asString(-precision=#precision)}

local(total = 29.95)
#total->asPrice('$')

I was going to suggest simply sub classing the decimal type however
that appears to fail absolutely miserably - investigating that
further...

Ke

On 28 July 2010 22:41, Tami Williams <tami@[Protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for the help.  How did you find the answer to stuff like #2?  I
> searched for decimal and format and I can't find the answer you gave.
>
> Thanks again.
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Chris Wik wrote:
>
>> On 28.07.2010, at 08:09, Tami Williams wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Are variable_set and encode_set and -encodeNone not in Lasso 9? I get
>>> errors if they're on a page.  Is there a replacement?
>>
>> variable_set, see:
>> http://reference.lassosoft.com/Reference.LassoApp?lassoscript/browse
>>
>> It lists the support as deprecated, and suggests using [var] instead.
>>
>> I ran into the same with recordid_value the other day, which is now
>> deprecated (and listed as such in the 8.5 reference). The replacement is
>> keyfield_value.
>>
>> I don't see encode_set in the L9 reference, not sure if there is a
>> replacement other than applying the encoding to any strings you want to
>> output. Eg. in the 8.5 reference, you can do encodehtml like so:
>>
>> [Encode_Set, -encodehtml]
>>   [Output: '<br>These HTML values will be displayed as HTML']
>> [/Encode_Set]
>>
>> In L9, you can just do:
>>
>> ['<br>These HTML values will be displayed as HTML'->encodehtml]
>>
>> EncodeNone doesn't apply any encoding, so just leave out ->encodeX, it's
>> the default.
>>
>> Here's the list of encoding methods in L9:
>> http://docs9.lassosoft.com/lasso9/LassoReference/?-f=encode
>>
>>> 2. Why does var:'x' = 3.0 display as 3.0 in Lasso 8.5 but as 3.000000 in
>>> Lasso 9?
>>
>> Lasso 9 displays the decimal type to 6 decimal places by default, you can
>> change this like so:
>>
>> [var:'x' = 3.0]
>> [$x->asstring(-precision=1)]
>>
>> The equivalent in 8.5 (to display with 6 decimal places):
>>
>> [var:'x' = 3.0]
>> [$x->setformat(-precision=6)]
>> [$x]
>>
>> Not sure if/how you could change the default number of decimal places
>> shown. That would be nice. 8.5 seems to just display as many decimal places
>> as were specified when the variable was defined, which is definitely
>> different behavior to L9. I don't know if it's possible to replicate 8.5's
>> behavior.
>>
>>> 3. Why does var:'aDate' = date display as 07/27/2010 15:49:24 in Lasso
>>> 8.5 but as 2010-07-27 15:49:24 in Lasso 9?
>>
>> Again, different defaults in L9. I guess the lesson here is to always
>> specify how you want your data output, and not rely on defaults. This seems
>> good practice to me, and these changes probably will only affect US based
>> customers, as I don't think anyone else in the world likes seeing the month
>> before the day :-)
>>
>> L9 syntax to achieve 8.5 default formatting: [$aDate->format('%D %T')]
>>
>>> 4. Why does locals->find:'Something' not work?  Does [Locals] no longer
>>> exist? What's the replacement?  Is there one?
>>> variables->find:'Something'  also doesn't work (gives an error).
>>
>> Looks to me like they're not implemented in L9. I don't know what you
>> would use instead, I don't think I've ever used these tags (but then, I'm
>> not a very advanced coder...)
>>
>>> 5. Has something changed with Sessions?  I have a very simple 2 page
>>> example where I create a session and add a var on p1 and start the session
>>> and view the var on p2 which works in Lasso 8.5 but gives an error (can't
>>> find the variable) in Lasso 9.
>>>
>>> Here's what I'm using for Session Start:
>>> Session_Start: -Name='TestSession', -Expires=15, -UseLink;
>>
>> As far as I know session in L9 are basically the same as in L8. This seems
>> to work fine for me:
>>
>> <?lasso
>>        session_start(-name='test', -expires=15, -uselink);
>>        if(var_defined('x'));
>>                'Var X is '+$x;
>>        else;
>>                var('x')        = 123;
>>                'Var X set.'
>>        /if;
>>        session_addvar(-name='test', 'x');
>> ?>
>>
>>> 6. When I try to pass an array thru a form and retrieve it like this:
>>
>> Don't know about this one.
>>
>>> 7. This doesn't work anymore.  What's the replacement?
>>>
>>> The error is:
>>> Error Msg: Definition Not Found: Field_Name(-count=boolean) Candidates
>>> were: Field_Name(count::boolean =?)
>>>
>>> The code is:
>>> [inline:
>>> -database='test',
>>> -layout='testExport',
>>> -maxRecords='all',
>>> -show]
>>>        [Loop:(Field_Name:-Count)]
>>> [/Loop]
>>> [/inline]
>>
>> You're trying to get a list of the field names?
>>
>> [inline: ..., -show]
>>        [iterate(field_names, var('name'))]
>>                [$name]
>>        [/iterate]
>> [/inline]
>>
>>> 8.  What's the new way to do an include with protect, handle and fail_if
>>> tags?
>>
>> Can you give an example from 8.5? I'm not sure, but I thought these tags
>> were the same in L9.
>>
>>> 9. What's new the syntax for include with lassoapp_link?
>>
>> Don't know much about LassoApps, in 8.5 or 9... looks like there are some
>> docs available here: http://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Web-Apps-Lasso-Apps.html
>>
>>> 10.  How do I rewrite this for Lasso 9:
>>>
>>>
>>> Loop:(String_RemoveLeading:(String_RemoveTrailing:$fusebox->(Find:'currentPath'),-Pattern='/'),-Pattern='/')->(Split:'/')->Size;
>>
>> OTOH I would guess something like:
>>
>> loop(
>> $fusebox->find('currentpath')->removeleading('/')->removetrailing('/')->split('/')->size
>> );
>>
>>> 11.  is $myarray->Remove still valid in Lasso 9? If not what's the new
>>> syntax? $myarray->Remove($myarray->Size) ?
>>
>> Seems still valid:
>>
>> [var('x')       = array(1='one', 2='two', 3='three')]
>> [$x->remove(2)]
>> [$x]
>>
>> -> array((1 = one), (3 = three))
>>
>> --
>> Chris Wik
>> Anu Internet Services Ltd

remember though that some lasso developers have not the slightest clue
what you mean when you start talking about "sub classing" and
whatnaught.

lasso's been around a long time, and allowed untrained designers to do
some pretty amazing things with a simple "html-like" syntax that we
GOT without having to know how to *program*.

when things that have always worked and made sense suddenly do not
work, and one of the ways to make it fix is to "sub class blah blah
blah" --- well, i imagine it can get overwhelming.

:(

i'm not saying that it's not a good suggestion, or that we ought shy
from giving "real programming" answers to questions --- but this does
seem like a good opportunity to point out that tami is a fairly
typical (and competent!) lasso developer who's been with us a looooong
time.

there are likely gobs of people like her, who *want* to love lasso9
because they loved lasso3, but when things like variable_set don't
work.... well it'd be weird and confusing.

*shrug*

+1

I read some of the answers in this thread, closed my mouth, wiped the quizzical look off my face, shook my head and went back to work with LP8.5...

Marc


On Jul 30, 2010, at 4:56 PM, Chris Corwin wrote:

> remember though that some lasso developers have not the slightest clue
> what you mean when you start talking about "sub classing" and
> whatnaught.
>
> lasso's been around a long time, and allowed untrained designers to do
> some pretty amazing things with a simple "html-like" syntax that we
> GOT without having to know how to *program*.
>
> when things that have always worked and made sense suddenly do not
> work, and one of the ways to make it fix is to "sub class blah blah
> blah" --- well, i imagine it can get overwhelming.
>
> :(
>
> i'm not saying that it's not a good suggestion, or that we ought shy
> from giving "real programming" answers to questions --- but this does
> seem like a good opportunity to point out that tami is a fairly
> typical (and competent!) lasso developer who's been with us a looooong
> time.
>
> there are likely gobs of people like her, who *want* to love lasso9
> because they loved lasso3, but when things like variable_set don't
> work.... well it'd be weird and confusing.
>
> *shrug*
>
> --
>
>

--
Marc Pinnell
1027 Design
PO Box 990872
Redding, CA 96099-0872
530.941.4706
fax: 866.232.5300
www.1027Design.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerGuy3

You have some valid (although not to be misconstrued as negative)
points. And hey, for example, it would be awesome to see this type of
stuff constructively contributed t the Lasso Docs Wiki.

-Kerry



On 7/31/2010 1:56 AM, Chris Corwin wrote:
> remember though that some lasso developers have not the slightest clue
> what you mean when you start talking about "sub classing" and
> whatnaught.
>
> lasso's been around a long time, and allowed untrained designers to do
> some pretty amazing things with a simple "html-like" syntax that we
> GOT without having to know how to *program*.
>
> when things that have always worked and made sense suddenly do not
> work, and one of the ways to make it fix is to "sub class blah blah
> blah" --- well, i imagine it can get overwhelming.
>
> :(
>
> i'm not saying that it's not a good suggestion, or that we ought shy
> from giving "real programming" answers to questions --- but this does
> seem like a good opportunity to point out that tami is a fairly
> typical (and competent!) lasso developer who's been with us a looooong
> time.
>
> there are likely gobs of people like her, who *want* to love lasso9
> because they loved lasso3, but when things like variable_set don't
> work.... well it'd be weird and confusing.
>
> *shrug*

On Jul 30, 2010, at 8:16 PM, Marc Pinnell wrote:

> +1
>
> I read some of the answers in this thread, closed my mouth, wiped the quizzical look off my face, shook my head and went back to work with LP8.5...
>
> Marc

+1 too.

--Rick

Chris:

I think that your response is quite timely.

We do need to make sure that we offer simple clear answers and perhaps try to add the cool, geeky, new stuff in later or separate responses.

Most of these issues can be solved and understood without resorting to lasso9 only techniques or coding styles.

The power of Lasso9 is in the fact that most of our code works, and yet as we learn and get more comfortable with the new code style, most have found that you can accomplish more with less code. The cool part is the you can mix and match as you learn.

Ke:

Any chance you might be able to do a write up of all the different types of lasso9 coolness you have wrapped in that code snippet in a way that non lasso9 users can grasp? If you don't have time, I might take a poke at it but its usually better to have the author explain his work. I'm sure that most of us would learn something from that description.

Just a thought.

Tim Taplin


On Jul 30, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Chris Corwin wrote:

> remember though that some lasso developers have not the slightest clue
> what you mean when you start talking about "sub classing" and
> whatnaught.
>
> lasso's been around a long time, and allowed untrained designers to do
> some pretty amazing things with a simple "html-like" syntax that we
> GOT without having to know how to *program*.
>
> when things that have always worked and made sense suddenly do not
> work, and one of the ways to make it fix is to "sub class blah blah
> blah" --- well, i imagine it can get overwhelming.
>
> :(
>
> i'm not saying that it's not a good suggestion, or that we ought shy
> from giving "real programming" answers to questions --- but this does
> seem like a good opportunity to point out that tami is a fairly
> typical (and competent!) lasso developer who's been with us a looooong
> time.
>
> there are likely gobs of people like her, who *want* to love lasso9
> because they loved lasso3, but when things like variable_set don't
> work.... well it'd be weird and confusing.
>
> *shrug*

On 7/30/10 at 10:58 PM, rpdwyer@[Protected] (Rick Dwyer) pronounced:

>On Jul 30, 2010, at 8:16 PM, Marc Pinnell wrote:
>
>>+1
>>
>>I read some of the answers in this thread, closed my mouth, wiped the quizzical
>look off my face, shook my head and went back to work with LP8.5...
>
>+1 too.

New vocabulary terms tend to do that. Subclass, signatures,
methods, etc. It's a lot to absorb. And finding answers is not
easy given the current state of documentation for Lasso 9.

(1) http://docs9.lassosoft.com/
(2) http://docs9.lassosoft.com/lasso9/LassoReference/
(3) http://www.lassotech.com/
(4) http://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/

I'm one of those folks who is stumbling along through 9, too.
Take this for example:
https://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Defining-Methods.html#Signaturesmetaintroducessignaturesmeta

"Before method definitions can be understood, it is
important to
understand signatures. A signature is a description of a method
and includes its name, parameter names and types, and the
method's return value type. Signatures are used when defining
methods, and simplified signatures are used when defining types
and traits."

WTF is that?!?!?! If I understood at least half of that jargon,
then I might be able to determine whether it would be useful to
me. And that is one of many reasons why LassoSoft launched the
new Zoho-based wiki (Item 4, above).

The Zoho-based wiki was created to provide an easy-to-use,
collaborative, web-based repository for documentation. Items 1
and 2 are one-way information delivery systems. Item 3 is not
easy to use and not collaborative especially compared to the
numerous features that Zoho offers. Folks can ask for
clarification or post a comment to the wiki (anonymously, too),
and the editors will do their best to respond.

As I learn new things that were not obvious to me, I put them on
the wiki. Anyone can do the same. Just ask for a new page on
the Zoho-based wiki, and the editors will respond.

I don't think anyone expects
non-programmer/designer/just-gitter-dun Lasso 8.5 and earlier
users to comprehend any new terms introduced in Lasso 9. And
since the current state of Lasso 9 documentation is sub-optimal,
the unwritten expectation that subscribers to LassoTalk should
RTFM or search the archives before posting a simple question
does not exist. In other words, there are no stupid Lasso 9 questions.

So stop staring blankly at your screen, wipe that drool from
your chin, and start asking stupid Lasso 9 questions!

--steve

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- --
Steve Piercy Web Site Builder
Soquel, CA
<web@[Protected]> <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>

31 jul 2010 kl. 02.16 skrev Marc Pinnell:

> I read some of the answers in this thread, closed my mouth, wiped the quizzical look off my face, shook my head and went back to work with LP8.5...

My take.
Lasso 9 is a great programming language. Modern, efficient and allows you to write lean, cool-looking code.
Lasso 9 documentation is ...less than great.
LassoSofts engagement in the needs of the community is for the moment ....as far from great as is possible. (I would like to use really strong language here...)

The position LassoSoft (Kyle) took when setting out to create the next generation Lasso was in my opinion the right one. Get rid of old legacy stuff, move the language into the forefront of languages in every possible way. The mistake they made was to concentrate so hard on the actual language development (a task much harder and tedious than they probably realized at the beginning) and forgetting all the fringe things needed to actually make the language usable for their client base. Like documentation, support, examples...

Tami has raised some very valid questions. And the answers probably didn't help that much. But, I also suspect that Tamis approach to Lasso 9 is wrong. If I understand correctly she is taking a major code base with legacies from Lasso 3 and trying to convert it to Lasso 9 in one major take without first getting familiar to the language. That is bound to produce paramount troubles. I would suggest that it's better to move in smaller steps. Do code snippets, build some easy stuff so that you get to know the way Lasso 9 can work for you. When you feel that you understand what it can do it's time to move on to actually start using it.

If you have code containing variable_set or string_concatenate etc, stuff that's been deprecated since post Lasso 3, it's probably better not try to convert it and instead rewrite it from scratch having it do the same tasks but with a clean, correct code.

And if you do insist on using variable_set instead of var... Then implement support for it.

Here's for example the code that adds support for variable, found in the compatibility layer:
define variable(pr::pair) => var(#pr->first = #pr->second)
define variable(k) => var(#k)

What it does is that it defines a method called variable with two signatures. The first signature catches instances where variable are called using a pair param. Like variable('myvar' = 'myvalue').
The second signature catches when you just initiate a variable without sending it any params. Like variable('myvar').
Both signatures then just takes the input and sends it on to the method(tag) "var".

Now if you want to support variable_set what you do is that you copy the code for variable and tweak it:

define variable_set(pr::pair) => var(#pr->first = #pr->second)
define variable_set(k) => var(#k)

Put it in a new page, lets call it variable_set.lasso, and save it to the LassoStartup folder. Done.
Now you can use variable_set anywhere without any drawbacks. It will act just as fast and efficient as any built in method. Different to Lasso pre 9 any method or type you define yourself will perform just as well as anyone that's built in by default.

Ah, and how did I find out about the variable definition code?
Well, I looked here:
http://download.lassosoft.com/svn/lasso/lasso9_source
Or to be more precise I've created an SVN working copy of the entire repository. Whenever I want to find out how Kyle wrote this or that I do a search in Bbedit for some relevant key words and take a peek on the code presented. Invaluable!!

HDB
Jolle

This?

define decimal->asPrice(currency::string='£',precision::integer=2) =>
{ return #currency + .asString(-precision=#precision)}

For the list, this is simply defining a new method (member tag) within
the decimal type. I don't believe there's a clean L8 syntax for it -
the closest you could get is by inserting tags into the properties map
of an L8 custom type (or directly into the prototypes map). It short
not easily!

To simplify it:

// Define a new method in a type (custom or otherwise)
define theType->theMethodToAdd => {// do this}

// Define a helloWorld method in the decimal type
define decimal->helloWorld => {return 'Hello world'}

10.00->helloWorld

Result: Hello world

The big thing is being able to extend types (build in and custom
types) on the fly without having to define your method (custom tag)
within the type's definition / source code.

I think that the most confusing aspect is the method (custom tag)
definition syntax:

// No params and a constant
define helloWorld => 'Hello world'
helloWorld
result: Hello world

// No params and a method that doesn't do much
define helloWorld => {return 'Hello world'}
helloWorld
result: Hello world

// Accept Non-restrictive who param
define helloWorld(who) => {return 'Hello '+#who}
helloWorld('lasso list')
result: Hello lasso list

// Accept who param with default value
define helloWorld(who='me') => {return 'Hello '+#who}
helloWorld
result: Hello me

// Accept restrictive who param - must be string ::tag
define helloWorld(who::sting) => {return 'Hello '+#who}
helloWorld('lasso list')
result: Hello lasso list

// Accept restrictive who param and set default value
define helloWorld(who::sting) => {return 'Hello '+#who}
helloWorld('lasso list')
result: Hello lasso list

// Define same method in the decimal type
define decimal->helloWorld(who::sting) => {return 'Hello '+#who}
helloWorld('lasso list')
result: Hello lasso list


I haven't yet done that much work in L9, most of the solutions I look
after are still L8 although I'm expecting a big push over to L9 over
the next few months and am both equally dreading and looking forward
to it...

Ke


On 31 July 2010 06:15, Tim Taplin <taplin@[Protected]> wrote:
>
> Ke:
>
> Any chance you might be able to do a write up of all the different types of lasso9 coolness you have wrapped in that code snippet in a way that non lasso9 users can grasp? If you don't have time, I might take a poke at it but its usually better to have the author explain his work. I'm sure that most of us would learn something from that description.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Tim Taplin

On 31 July 2010 08:31, <list@[Protected]> wrote:
>
> The position LassoSoft (Kyle) took when setting out to create the next generation Lasso was in my opinion the right one. Get rid of old legacy stuff, move the language into the forefront of languages in every possible way.

Agreed, although there still could have been better backwards support
without scarifying too much purity so to speak.

> Ah, and how did I find out about the variable definition code?
> Well, I looked here:
> http://download.lassosoft.com/svn/lasso/lasso9_source
> Or to be more precise I've created an SVN working copy of the entire repository. Whenever I want to find out how Kyle wrote this or that I do a search in Bbedit for some relevant key words and take a peek on the code presented. Invaluable!!

+1 the source code is the largest code example set we have (and are
likely to ever have - although more focus documented examples can't
come soon enough!). Thankfully most of the definitions have easy to
understand params and in that sense are almost self documenting. Often
you will see things like ::p which stumped me at first but that sets
all the params as the local #p and occasion there will be other single
letter locals - which I assume has been done to minimise overhead.
Thankfully they're not too common.

Ke

For string + precision, etc. Lasso 8.5 you'd use [Decimal->SetFormat]
at the top of the page (for every page that you wanted it - for
example in an include file that's included in every page in your site).

But you'd have to do $[var'varname']. Or use the currency tag. Or
create your own custom tag.

I think this gives the same functionality ? Or have I missed something?

Is it that in Lasso 9 the syntax to do it is shorter and you can
easily do 10.00->helloWorld or 10.00->asPrice?

I'm guessing 10.000-> asPrice = £10.00?

And,

if I did this
define decimal-
>asNewPrice(currency::string='***',precision::integer=1) =>
{ return #currency + .asString(-precision=#precision)}

I'm guessing 10.000-> asPrice = ***10.0?

Do I have it right?



On Jul 31, 2010, at 4:14 AM, Ke Carlton wrote:

> This?
>
> define decimal->asPrice(currency::string='£',precision::integer=2) =>
> { return #currency + .asString(-precision=#precision)}
>
> For the list, this is simply defining a new method (member tag) within
> the decimal type. I don't believe there's a clean L8 syntax for it -
> the closest you could get is by inserting tags into the properties map
> of an L8 custom type (or directly into the prototypes map). It short
> not easily!
>
> To simplify it:
>
> // Define a new method in a type (custom or otherwise)
> define theType->theMethodToAdd => {// do this}
>
> // Define a helloWorld method in the decimal type
> define decimal->helloWorld => {return 'Hello world'}
>
> 10.00->helloWorld
>
> Result: Hello world
>
> The big thing is being able to extend types (build in and custom
> types) on the fly without having to define your method (custom tag)
> within the type's definition / source code.
>
> I think that the most confusing aspect is the method (custom tag)
> definition syntax:
>
> // No params and a constant
> define helloWorld => 'Hello world'
> helloWorld
> result: Hello world
>
> // No params and a method that doesn't do much
> define helloWorld => {return 'Hello world'}
> helloWorld
> result: Hello world
>
> // Accept Non-restrictive who param
> define helloWorld(who) => {return 'Hello '+#who}
> helloWorld('lasso list')
> result: Hello lasso list
>
> // Accept who param with default value
> define helloWorld(who='me') => {return 'Hello '+#who}
> helloWorld
> result: Hello me
>
> // Accept restrictive who param - must be string ::tag
> define helloWorld(who::sting) => {return 'Hello '+#who}
> helloWorld('lasso list')
> result: Hello lasso list
>
> // Accept restrictive who param and set default value
> define helloWorld(who::sting) => {return 'Hello '+#who}
> helloWorld('lasso list')
> result: Hello lasso list
>
> // Define same method in the decimal type
> define decimal->helloWorld(who::sting) => {return 'Hello '+#who}
> helloWorld('lasso list')
> result: Hello lasso list
>
>
> I haven't yet done that much work in L9, most of the solutions I look
> after are still L8 although I'm expecting a big push over to L9 over
> the next few months and am both equally dreading and looking forward
> to it...
>
> Ke
>
>
> On 31 July 2010 06:15, Tim Taplin <taplin@[Protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Ke:
>>
>> Any chance you might be able to do a write up of all the different
>> types of lasso9 coolness you have wrapped in that code snippet in a
>> way that non lasso9 users can grasp? If you don't have time, I
>> might take a poke at it but its usually better to have the author
>> explain his work. I'm sure that most of us would learn something
>> from that description.
>>
>> Just a thought.
>>
>> Tim Taplin

Yup, or you could do the below to override the default:

10.000->asPrice('$');

Ke

On 31 July 2010 09:26, Tami Williams <tami@[Protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm guessing 10.000-> asPrice  = ***10.0?
>
> Do I have it right?

On 7/31/10 at 9:31 AM, list@[Protected] pronounced:

> Ah, and how did I find out about the variable definition code?
> Well, I looked here:
> http://download.lassosoft.com/svn/lasso/lasso9_source
> Or to be more precise I've created an SVN working copy of the entire repository.
> Whenever I want to find out how Kyle wrote this or that I do a search in Bbedit for
> some relevant key words and take a peek on the code presented. Invaluable!!

Added to the wiki. But my fingers are getting tired. Come on y'all, pitch in!
https://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Debugging-and-Troubleshooting.html

--steve

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Steve Piercy Web Site Builder Soquel, CA
<web@[Protected]> <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>

31 jul 2010 kl. 10.14 skrev Ke Carlton:

> define helloWorld(who::sting) => {return 'Hello '+#who}

This might classify me as picky. But for the record
define helloWorld(who::string) => {return 'Hello '+#who}
etc

Just to avoid someone copy/pasting and getting a confusing error...

HDB
Jolle

Good catch.

sidenote: it is very cool that lasso9 calls out the line and position of the error even if its in an include or a a previously loaded file of tag definitions. In the rare case that its off track somehow, the error screen does show the file and line number of each code block that created the path of how it got to the error which is helpful in backtracking.

On Jul 31, 2010, at 3:05 AM, list@[Protected] wrote:

> 31 jul 2010 kl. 10.14 skrev Ke Carlton:
>
>> define helloWorld(who::sting) => {return 'Hello '+#who}
>
> This might classify me as picky. But for the record
> define helloWorld(who::string) => {return 'Hello '+#who}
> etc
>
> Just to avoid someone copy/pasting and getting a confusing error...
>
> HDB
> Jolle

Agreed!!

HDB
Jolle

31 jul 2010 kl. 11.15 skrev Tim Taplin:

> it is very cool that lasso9 calls out the line and position of the error

+1

On Jul 31, 2010, at 5:21 AM, list@[Protected] wrote:

> Agreed!!
>
> HDB
> Jolle
>
> 31 jul 2010 kl. 11.15 skrev Tim Taplin:
>
>> it is very cool that lasso9 calls out the line and position of the
>> error

Cheers - missed that.

On 31 July 2010 10:05, <list@[Protected]> wrote:
> 31 jul 2010 kl. 10.14 skrev Ke Carlton:
>
>>       define helloWorld(who::sting) => {return 'Hello '+#who}
>
> This might classify me as picky. But for the record
> define helloWorld(who::string) => {return 'Hello '+#who}
> etc
>
> Just to avoid someone copy/pasting and getting a confusing error...
>
> HDB
> Jolle

Steve,

At this point, I am at a point where a) I am "scared of" Lasso 9 and b) have enough work to fill my weeks with 8.5 leaving little or no time to "start over". Looking at some of the stuff that is being posted leave me with the feeling that using 9 will be like starting over. While that may not be true - since I haven't the time to try it really - that's the impression I am getting. Maybe after the summer is over and the days turn cold and dark I will be more inclined...

Marc

On Jul 30, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:

> So stop staring blankly at your screen, wipe that drool from your chin, and start asking stupid Lasso 9 questions!

--
Marc Pinnell
1027 Design
PO Box 990872
Redding, CA 96099-0872
530.941.4706
fax: 866.232.5300
www.1027Design.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerGuy3

Sorry to hear you say that.

I've been trying to point out that the easiest way to get going in lasso9 is to keep writing your 8.5 code and run it on lasso9.

Once you adjust to the fact that lasso9 is a little more strict, you wonder how you ever worked without the excellent error reporting and you'll find yourself starting to use bits of lasso9 syntax here and there intermingled with your 8.5 code where something clicks and being forced to look thru some of your old code, you'll be surprised at how many things you can improve while you're there.

You won't have to start over with your code anymore than listening to a lengthy discussion of how at_begins and custom redirects in your apache config would force you to change your directory and path structure.

If something looks confusing, point it out to the list and I'm sure one of us can try to distill it down to the part that's actually necessary without wandering into the details of how you can write your own extensions to the array or decimal types so that they can order pizza whenever the full moon falls on the second tuesday of the month.

I would hope and expect that the improved ease and simplicity of creating and using custom types and tags and extending existing types and tags will encourage you to become more familiar with object oriented programming in the scope of the lasso9 language, (I dont know how far along this path you may already be) as the benefits are even greater than using these features in lasso 8.5.

Tim Taplin

On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Marc Pinnell wrote:

> Steve,
>
> At this point, I am at a point where a) I am "scared of" Lasso 9 and b) have enough work to fill my weeks with 8.5 leaving little or no time to "start over". Looking at some of the stuff that is being posted leave me with the feeling that using 9 will be like starting over. While that may not be true - since I haven't the time to try it really - that's the impression I am getting. Maybe after the summer is over and the days turn cold and dark I will be more inclined...
>
> Marc
>
> On Jul 30, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:
>
>> So stop staring blankly at your screen, wipe that drool from your chin, and start asking stupid Lasso 9 questions!
>
> --
> Marc Pinnell
> 1027 Design
> PO Box 990872
> Redding, CA 96099-0872
> 530.941.4706
> fax: 866.232.5300
> www.1027Design.com
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerGuy3

IIRC that is exactly what I tried about 4-6 months ago (has it really been that long!?). I fired up 9, tried to move a site over immediately started with errors and roadblocks (startup folder stuff, cTags, at_begins, etc) and gave up. Of course in those days there was ANY documentation. Maybe I can find a weekend to dive back in and try again.

Marc


On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Tim Taplin wrote:

> Sorry to hear you say that.
>
> I've been trying to point out that the easiest way to get going in lasso9 is to keep writing your 8.5 code and run it on lasso9.
>
> Once you adjust to the fact that lasso9 is a little more strict, you wonder how you ever worked without the excellent error reporting and you'll find yourself starting to use bits of lasso9 syntax here and there intermingled with your 8.5 code where something clicks and being forced to look thru some of your old code, you'll be surprised at how many things you can improve while you're there.
>
> You won't have to start over with your code anymore than listening to a lengthy discussion of how at_begins and custom redirects in your apache config would force you to change your directory and path structure.
>
> If something looks confusing, point it out to the list and I'm sure one of us can try to distill it down to the part that's actually necessary without wandering into the details of how you can write your own extensions to the array or decimal types so that they can order pizza whenever the full moon falls on the second tuesday of the month.
>
> I would hope and expect that the improved ease and simplicity of creating and using custom types and tags and extending existing types and tags will encourage you to become more familiar with object oriented programming in the scope of the lasso9 language, (I dont know how far along this path you may already be) as the benefits are even greater than using these features in lasso 8.5.
>
> Tim Taplin
>
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Marc Pinnell wrote:
>
>> Steve,
>>
>> At this point, I am at a point where a) I am "scared of" Lasso 9 and b) have enough work to fill my weeks with 8.5 leaving little or no time to "start over". Looking at some of the stuff that is being posted leave me with the feeling that using 9 will be like starting over. While that may not be true - since I haven't the time to try it really - that's the impression I am getting. Maybe after the summer is over and the days turn cold and dark I will be more inclined...
>>
>> Marc
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:
>>
>>> So stop staring blankly at your screen, wipe that drool from your chin, and start asking stupid Lasso 9 questions!
>>
>> --
>> Marc Pinnell
>> 1027 Design
>> PO Box 990872
>> Redding, CA 96099-0872
>> 530.941.4706
>> fax: 866.232.5300
>> www.1027Design.com
>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerGuy3
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>

--
Marc Pinnell
1027 Design
PO Box 990872
Redding, CA 96099-0872
530.941.4706
fax: 866.232.5300
www.1027Design.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerGuy3

I agree with Tim. Just take a deep breath and dive in. The
water's fine.

If you expect that your project will just run, then you will be
frustrated and disappointed. If you break it into smaller
pieces, running test cases on each custom tag and type until
successful, then larger projects will be surmountable.

For example, rather than try to convert my CMS entirely over to
Lasso 9 in one swoop, I tried tweaking just a test case that I
use within my CMS. I documented the thought process I went
through when troubleshooting. Thanks to Tim's suggestion, it
was a small success, and I'm on to my next test case.

https://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Debugging-and-Troubleshooting.html#Interpreting_the_Lasso_9_Error_Stack

Of course, a large project will take significant time, and each
developer needs to make a decision based less upon perceptions
and more upon facts and their available resources. I'm in the
camp that I will continue to use 8.5 for existing and new
projects, and as time and budget allows, work on migrating them
to 9 because I see the benefits of doing so.

--steve


On 7/31/10 at 12:13 PM, lassolist@[Protected] (Marc
Pinnell) pronounced:

>IIRC that is exactly what I tried about 4-6 months ago (has it
>really been that long!?). I fired up 9, tried to move a site
>over immediately started with errors and roadblocks (startup
>folder stuff, cTags, at_begins, etc) and gave up. Of course in
>those days there was ANY documentation. Maybe I can find a
>weekend to dive back in and try again.
>
>Marc
>
>
>On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Tim Taplin wrote:
>
>>Sorry to hear you say that.
>>I've been trying to point out that the easiest way to get going in lasso9 is to
>keep writing your 8.5 code and run it on lasso9.
>>
>>Once you adjust to the fact that lasso9 is a little more strict, you wonder how you
>ever worked without the excellent error reporting and you'll
>find yourself starting to use bits of lasso9 syntax here and
>there intermingled with your 8.5 code where something clicks
>and being forced to look thru some of your old code, you'll be
>surprised at how many things you can improve while you're there.
>>
>>You won't have to start over with your code anymore than listening to a lengthy
>discussion of how at_begins and custom redirects in your apache
>config would force you to change your directory and path structure.
>>
>>If something looks confusing, point it out to the list and I'm sure one of us can
>try to distill it down to the part that's actually necessary
>without wandering into the details of how you can write your
>own extensions to the array or decimal types so that they can
>order pizza whenever the full moon falls on the second tuesday
>of the month.
>>
>>I would hope and expect that the improved ease and simplicity of creating and using
>custom types and tags and extending existing types and tags
>will encourage you to become more familiar with object oriented
>programming in the scope of the lasso9 language, (I dont know
>how far along this path you may already be) as the benefits are
>even greater than using these features in lasso 8.5.
>>
>>Tim Taplin
>>
>>On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Marc Pinnell wrote:
>>
>>> Steve,
>>> At this point, I am at a point where a) I am "scared of"
>>>Lasso 9 and b) have
>enough work to fill my weeks with 8.5 leaving little or no time
>to "start over". Looking at some of the stuff that is being
>posted leave me with the feeling that using 9 will be like
>starting over. While that may not be true - since I haven't the
>time to try it really - that's the impression I am getting.
>Maybe after the summer is over and the days turn cold and dark
>I will be more inclined...
>>> Marc
>>> On Jul 30, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Steve Piercy - Web Site
>>>Builder wrote:
>>>
>>>> So stop staring blankly at your screen, wipe that drool from your chin, and start
>asking stupid Lasso 9 questions!
>>> -- Marc Pinnell
>>> 1027 Design
>>> PO Box 990872
>>> Redding, CA 96099-0872
>>> 530.941.4706
>>> fax: 866.232.5300
>>> www.1027Design.com
>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerGuy3
>>> --
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- --
Steve Piercy Web Site Builder
Soquel, CA
<web@[Protected]> <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>

I can buy that approach. Just have to figure out where I get a small project. 90% of my sites run under my CMS or a branch of it. So that leaves that last 10%. Unfortunately, that 10% represents old, legacy code and I am not sure that is the best candidate for conversion. But then again maybe it is as it WILL have problems and that might be the best way to learn 9!! :-)

Hope you guys like lots of silly questions, I see some in my future.

Marc


On Jul 31, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:

> I agree with Tim. Just take a deep breath and dive in. The water's fine.
>
> If you expect that your project will just run, then you will be frustrated and disappointed. If you break it into smaller pieces, running test cases on each custom tag and type until successful, then larger projects will be surmountable.
>
> For example, rather than try to convert my CMS entirely over to Lasso 9 in one swoop, I tried tweaking just a test case that I use within my CMS. I documented the thought process I went through when troubleshooting. Thanks to Tim's suggestion, it was a small success, and I'm on to my next test case.
>
> https://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Debugging-and-Troubleshooting.html#Interpreting_the_Lasso_9_Error_Stack
>
> Of course, a large project will take significant time, and each developer needs to make a decision based less upon perceptions and more upon facts and their available resources. I'm in the camp that I will continue to use 8.5 for existing and new projects, and as time and budget allows, work on migrating them to 9 because I see the benefits of doing so.
>
> --steve
>
>
> On 7/31/10 at 12:13 PM, lassolist@[Protected] (Marc Pinnell) pronounced:
>
>> IIRC that is exactly what I tried about 4-6 months ago (has it really been that long!?). I fired up 9, tried to move a site over immediately started with errors and roadblocks (startup folder stuff, cTags, at_begins, etc) and gave up. Of course in those days there was ANY documentation. Maybe I can find a weekend to dive back in and try again.
>>
>> Marc
>>
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Tim Taplin wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry to hear you say that.
>>> I've been trying to point out that the easiest way to get going in lasso9 is to
>> keep writing your 8.5 code and run it on lasso9.
>>>
>>> Once you adjust to the fact that lasso9 is a little more strict, you wonder how you
>> ever worked without the excellent error reporting and you'll find yourself starting to use bits of lasso9 syntax here and there intermingled with your 8.5 code where something clicks and being forced to look thru some of your old code, you'll be surprised at how many things you can improve while you're there.
>>>
>>> You won't have to start over with your code anymore than listening to a lengthy
>> discussion of how at_begins and custom redirects in your apache config would force you to change your directory and path structure.
>>>
>>> If something looks confusing, point it out to the list and I'm sure one of us can
>> try to distill it down to the part that's actually necessary without wandering into the details of how you can write your own extensions to the array or decimal types so that they can order pizza whenever the full moon falls on the second tuesday of the month.
>>>
>>> I would hope and expect that the improved ease and simplicity of creating and using
>> custom types and tags and extending existing types and tags will encourage you to become more familiar with object oriented programming in the scope of the lasso9 language, (I dont know how far along this path you may already be) as the benefits are even greater than using these features in lasso 8.5.
>>>
>>> Tim Taplin
>>>
>>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Marc Pinnell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve,
>>>> At this point, I am at a point where a) I am "scared of" Lasso 9 and b) have
>> enough work to fill my weeks with 8.5 leaving little or no time to "start over". Looking at some of the stuff that is being posted leave me with the feeling that using 9 will be like starting over. While that may not be true - since I haven't the time to try it really - that's the impression I am getting. Maybe after the summer is over and the days turn cold and dark I will be more inclined...
>>>> Marc
>>>> On Jul 30, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So stop staring blankly at your screen, wipe that drool from your chin, and start
>> asking stupid Lasso 9 questions!
>>>> -- Marc Pinnell
>>>> 1027 Design
>>>> PO Box 990872
>>>> Redding, CA 96099-0872
>>>> 530.941.4706
>>>> fax: 866.232.5300
>>>> www.1027Design.com
>>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerGuy3
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> Steve Piercy Web Site Builder Soquel, CA
> <web@[Protected]> <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>
>
>
> --
>
>

--
Marc Pinnell
1027 Design
PO Box 990872
Redding, CA 96099-0872
530.941.4706
fax: 866.232.5300
www.1027Design.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerGuy3

On Jul 31, 2010, at 1:31 AM, list@[Protected] wrote:

> define variable(pr::pair) => var(#pr->first = #pr->second)
> define variable(k) => var(#k)


i have not spend much time with Lasso 9, but could you explain the above

In most OO languages you define a method and then overload the constructor to deal with different parameters. this looks like you are defining the method twice? Is this just a "shortcut?" Are their other languages that do this. (I think in general you only define a method once so it can easily be resolved after compiling).

Are the signatures just constructors?

Deco

Our continued road block is that we really have just one project with a lot of code. Because Lasso 8.5 and Lasso 9 sessions cannot live together easily we don't have a viable migration path. E.g. a lasso 8.5 page cannot call a lasso 9 page.

We do have some standalone apps that can exist outside of the main core, but alas all those are being written in other languages until we have some assurance that there are some heavy-load Lasso 9 sites out there.

Deco


On Jul 31, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Marc Pinnell wrote:

> I can buy that approach. Just have to figure out where I get a small project. 90% of my sites run under my CMS or a branch of it. So that leaves that last 10%. Unfortunately, that 10% represents old, legacy code and I am not sure that is the best candidate for conversion. But then again maybe it is as it WILL have problems and that might be the best way to learn 9!! :-)
>
> Hope you guys like lots of silly questions, I see some in my future.
>
> Marc

Looking forward to the questions. Old code will likely have room for improvement (I know mine usually does) so you won't feel like you are wasting your time.

Strongly suggest starting by decolonizing the code. It will avoid many pitfalls and refamiliarize you with exactly how you put things together.

Tim
Sent from my iPod

On Jul 31, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Marc Pinnell <lassolist@[Protected]> wrote:

> I can buy that approach. Just have to figure out where I get a small project. 90% of my sites run under my CMS or a branch of it. So that leaves that last 10%. Unfortunately, that 10% represents old, legacy code and I am not sure that is the best candidate for conversion. But then again maybe it is as it WILL have problems and that might be the best way to learn 9!! :-)
>
> Hope you guys like lots of silly questions, I see some in my future.
>
> Marc
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:
>
>> I agree with Tim. Just take a deep breath and dive in. The water's fine..
>>
>> If you expect that your project will just run, then you will be frustrated and disappointed. If you break it into smaller pieces, running test cases on each custom tag and type until successful, then larger projects will be surmountable.
>>
>> For example, rather than try to convert my CMS entirely over to Lasso 9 in one swoop, I tried tweaking just a test case that I use within my CMS. I documented the thought process I went through when troubleshooting. Thanks to Tim's suggestion, it was a small success, and I'm on to my next test case.
>>
>> https://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Debugging-and-Troubleshooting.html#Interpreting_the_Lasso_9_Error_Stack
>>
>> Of course, a large project will take significant time, and each developer needs to make a decision based less upon perceptions and more upon facts and their available resources. I'm in the camp that I will continue to use 8.5 for existing and new projects, and as time and budget allows, work on migrating them to 9 because I see the benefits of doing so.
>>
>> --steve
>>
>>
>> On 7/31/10 at 12:13 PM, lassolist@[Protected] (Marc Pinnell) pronounced:
>>
>>> IIRC that is exactly what I tried about 4-6 months ago (has it really been that long!?). I fired up 9, tried to move a site over immediately started with errors and roadblocks (startup folder stuff, cTags, at_begins, etc) and gave up. Of course in those days there was ANY documentation. Maybe I can find a weekend to dive back in and try again.
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Tim Taplin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry to hear you say that.
>>>> I've been trying to point out that the easiest way to get going in lasso9 is to
>>> keep writing your 8.5 code and run it on lasso9.
>>>>
>>>> Once you adjust to the fact that lasso9 is a little more strict, you wonder how you
>>> ever worked without the excellent error reporting and you'll find yourself starting to use bits of lasso9 syntax here and there intermingled with your 8.5 code where something clicks and being forced to look thru some of your old code, you'll be surprised at how many things you can improve while you're there.
>>>>
>>>> You won't have to start over with your code anymore than listening to a lengthy
>>> discussion of how at_begins and custom redirects in your apache config would force you to change your directory and path structure.
>>>>
>>>> If something looks confusing, point it out to the list and I'm sure one of us can
>>> try to distill it down to the part that's actually necessary without wandering into the details of how you can write your own extensions to the array or decimal types so that they can order pizza whenever the full moon falls on the second tuesday of the month.
>>>>
>>>> I would hope and expect that the improved ease and simplicity of creating and using
>>> custom types and tags and extending existing types and tags will encourage you to become more familiar with object oriented programming in the scope of the lasso9 language, (I dont know how far along this path you may already be) as the benefits are even greater than using these features in lasso 8.5.
>>>>
>>>> Tim Taplin
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Marc Pinnell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Steve,
>>>>> At this point, I am at a point where a) I am "scared of" Lasso 9 and b) have
>>> enough work to fill my weeks with 8.5 leaving little or no time to "start over". Looking at some of the stuff that is being posted leave me with the feeling that using 9 will be like starting over. While that may not be true - since I haven't the time to try it really - that's the impression I am getting. Maybe after the summer is over and the days turn cold and dark I will be more inclined...
>>>>> Marc
>>>>> On Jul 30, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So stop staring blankly at your screen, wipe that drool from your chin, and start
>>> asking stupid Lasso 9 questions!
>>>>> -- Marc Pinnell
>>>>> 1027 Design
>>>>> PO Box 990872
>>>>> Redding, CA 96099-0872
>>>>> 530.941.4706
>>>>> fax: 866.232.5300
>>>>> www.1027Design.com
>>>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerGuy3
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
>> Steve Piercy Web Site Builder Soquel, CA
>> <web@[Protected]> <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
> --
> Marc Pinnell
> 1027 Design
> PO Box 990872
> Redding, CA 96099-0872
> 530.941.4706
> fax: 866.232.5300
> www.1027Design.com
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerGuy3

Well, there you go again! ;-)

"decolonizing"? Oh wait, now I see... as in colon not as in colony.... read it wrong the first two times!

Marc


On Jul 31, 2010, at 2:18 PM, Tim Taplin wrote:

> Looking forward to the questions. Old code will likely have room for improvement (I know mine usually does) so you won't feel like you are wasting your time.
>
> Strongly suggest starting by decolonizing the code. It will avoid many pitfalls and refamiliarize you with exactly how you put things together.
>
> Tim
> Sent from my iPod
>
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Marc Pinnell <lassolist@[Protected]> wrote:
>
>> I can buy that approach. Just have to figure out where I get a small project. 90% of my sites run under my CMS or a branch of it. So that leaves that last 10%. Unfortunately, that 10% represents old, legacy code and I am not sure that is the best candidate for conversion. But then again maybe it is as it WILL have problems and that might be the best way to learn 9!! :-)
>>
>> Hope you guys like lots of silly questions, I see some in my future.
>>
>> Marc
>>
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Tim. Just take a deep breath and dive in. The water's fine.
>>>
>>> If you expect that your project will just run, then you will be frustrated and disappointed. If you break it into smaller pieces, running test cases on each custom tag and type until successful, then larger projects will be surmountable.
>>>
>>> For example, rather than try to convert my CMS entirely over to Lasso 9 in one swoop, I tried tweaking just a test case that I use within my CMS. I documented the thought process I went through when troubleshooting. Thanks to Tim's suggestion, it was a small success, and I'm on to my next test case.
>>>
>>> https://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Debugging-and-Troubleshooting.html#Interpreting_the_Lasso_9_Error_Stack
>>>
>>> Of course, a large project will take significant time, and each developer needs to make a decision based less upon perceptions and more upon facts and their available resources. I'm in the camp that I will continue to use 8.5 for existing and new projects, and as time and budget allows, work on migrating them to 9 because I see the benefits of doing so.
>>>
>>> --steve
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/31/10 at 12:13 PM, lassolist@[Protected] (Marc Pinnell) pronounced:
>>>
>>>> IIRC that is exactly what I tried about 4-6 months ago (has it really been that long!?). I fired up 9, tried to move a site over immediately started with errors and roadblocks (startup folder stuff, cTags, at_begins, etc) and gave up. Of course in those days there was ANY documentation. Maybe I can find a weekend to dive back in and try again.
>>>>
>>>> Marc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Tim Taplin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to hear you say that.
>>>>> I've been trying to point out that the easiest way to get going in lasso9 is to
>>>> keep writing your 8.5 code and run it on lasso9.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once you adjust to the fact that lasso9 is a little more strict, you wonder how you
>>>> ever worked without the excellent error reporting and you'll find yourself starting to use bits of lasso9 syntax here and there intermingled with your 8.5 code where something clicks and being forced to look thru some of your old code, you'll be surprised at how many things you can improve while you're there.
>>>>>
>>>>> You won't have to start over with your code anymore than listening to a lengthy
>>>> discussion of how at_begins and custom redirects in your apache config would force you to change your directory and path structure.
>>>>>
>>>>> If something looks confusing, point it out to the list and I'm sure one of us can
>>>> try to distill it down to the part that's actually necessary without wandering into the details of how you can write your own extensions to the array or decimal types so that they can order pizza whenever the full moon falls on the second tuesday of the month.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would hope and expect that the improved ease and simplicity of creating and using
>>>> custom types and tags and extending existing types and tags will encourage you to become more familiar with object oriented programming in the scope of the lasso9 language, (I dont know how far along this path you may already be) as the benefits are even greater than using these features in lasso 8.5.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim Taplin
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Marc Pinnell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve,
>>>>>> At this point, I am at a point where a) I am "scared of" Lasso 9 and b) have
>>>> enough work to fill my weeks with 8.5 leaving little or no time to "start over". Looking at some of the stuff that is being posted leave me with the feeling that using 9 will be like starting over. While that may not be true - since I haven't the time to try it really - that's the impression I am getting. Maybe after the summer is over and the days turn cold and dark I will be more inclined...
>>>>>> Marc
>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So stop staring blankly at your screen, wipe that drool from your chin, and start
>>>> asking stupid Lasso 9 questions!
>>>>>> -- Marc Pinnell
>>>>>> 1027 Design
>>>>>> PO Box 990872
>>>>>> Redding, CA 96099-0872
>>>>>> 530.941.4706
>>>>>> fax: 866.232.5300
>>>>>> www.1027Design.com
>>>>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerGuy3
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
>>> Steve Piercy Web Site Builder Soquel, CA
>>> <web@[Protected]> <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Marc Pinnell
>> 1027 Design
>> PO Box 990872
>> Redding, CA 96099-0872
>> 530.941.4706
>> fax: 866.232.5300
>> www.1027Design.com
>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerGuy3
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
> --
>
>

--
Marc Pinnell
1027 Design
PO Box 990872
Redding, CA 96099-0872
530.941.4706
fax: 866.232.5300
www.1027Design.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerGuy3

This is the mulltiple dispatch feature which allows you to define multiple versions of the same method and let lasso use the most appropriate version at tinting. More accurate description at http://lassosoft.wiki.soho.com/Defining-Methods.html particularly the multiple dispatch section toward the bottom..

Tim
Sent from my iPod

On Jul 31, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Deco Rior <decorior@[Protected]> wrote:

>
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 1:31 AM, list@[Protected] wrote:
>
>> define variable(pr::pair) => var(#pr->first = #pr->second)
>> define variable(k) => var(#k)
>
>
> i have not spend much time with Lasso 9, but could you explain the above
>
> In most OO languages you define a method and then overload the constructor to deal with different parameters. this looks like you are defining the method twice? Is this just a "shortcut?" Are their other languages that do this. (I think in general you only define a method once so it can easily be resolved after compiling).
>
> Are the signatures just constructors?
>
> Deco

Yes, I thought it meant that the NZ and Aussie lasso codes would be expelled form the country after it was returned to their native population.

On Jul 31, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Marc Pinnell wrote:

> Well, there you go again! ;-)
>
> "decolonizing"? Oh wait, now I see... as in colon not as in colony.... read it wrong the first two times!
>
> Marc
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 2:18 PM, Tim Taplin wrote:
>
>> Looking forward to the questions. Old code will likely have room for improvement (I know mine usually does) so you won't feel like you are wasting your time.
>>
>> Strongly suggest starting by decolonizing the code. It will avoid many pitfalls and refamiliarize you with exactly how you put things together.
>>
>> Tim
>> Sent from my iPod
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Marc Pinnell <lassolist@[Protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I can buy that approach. Just have to figure out where I get a small project. 90% of my sites run under my CMS or a branch of it. So that leaves that last 10%. Unfortunately, that 10% represents old, legacy code and I am not sure that is the best candidate for conversion. But then again maybe it is as it WILL have problems and that might be the best way to learn 9!! :-)
>>>
>>> Hope you guys like lots of silly questions, I see some in my future.
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with Tim. Just take a deep breath and dive in. The water's fine.
>>>>
>>>> If you expect that your project will just run, then you will be frustrated and disappointed. If you break it into smaller pieces, running test cases on each custom tag and type until successful, then larger projects will be surmountable.
>>>>
>>>> For example, rather than try to convert my CMS entirely over to Lasso 9 in one swoop, I tried tweaking just a test case that I use within my CMS. I documented the thought process I went through when troubleshooting. Thanks to Tim's suggestion, it was a small success, and I'm on to my next test case.
>>>>
>>>> https://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Debugging-and-Troubleshooting.html#Interpreting_the_Lasso_9_Error_Stack
>>>>
>>>> Of course, a large project will take significant time, and each developer needs to make a decision based less upon perceptions and more upon facts and their available resources. I'm in the camp that I will continue to use 8.5 for existing and new projects, and as time and budget allows, work on migrating them to 9 because I see the benefits of doing so.
>>>>
>>>> --steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/31/10 at 12:13 PM, lassolist@[Protected] (Marc Pinnell) pronounced:
>>>>
>>>>> IIRC that is exactly what I tried about 4-6 months ago (has it really been that long!?). I fired up 9, tried to move a site over immediately started with errors and roadblocks (startup folder stuff, cTags, at_begins, etc) and gave up. Of course in those days there was ANY documentation. Maybe I can find a weekend to dive back in and try again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Tim Taplin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry to hear you say that.
>>>>>> I've been trying to point out that the easiest way to get going in lasso9 is to
>>>>> keep writing your 8.5 code and run it on lasso9.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once you adjust to the fact that lasso9 is a little more strict, you wonder how you
>>>>> ever worked without the excellent error reporting and you'll find yourself starting to use bits of lasso9 syntax here and there intermingled with your 8.5 code where something clicks and being forced to look thru some of your old code, you'll be surprised at how many things you can improve while you're there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You won't have to start over with your code anymore than listening to a lengthy
>>>>> discussion of how at_begins and custom redirects in your apache config would force you to change your directory and path structure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If something looks confusing, point it out to the list and I'm sure one of us can
>>>>> try to distill it down to the part that's actually necessary without wandering into the details of how you can write your own extensions to the array or decimal types so that they can order pizza whenever the full moon falls on the second tuesday of the month.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would hope and expect that the improved ease and simplicity of creating and using
>>>>> custom types and tags and extending existing types and tags will encourage you to become more familiar with object oriented programming in the scope of the lasso9 language, (I dont know how far along this path you may already be) as the benefits are even greater than using these features in lasso 8.5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim Taplin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Marc Pinnell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steve,
>>>>>>> At this point, I am at a point where a) I am "scared of" Lasso 9 and b) have
>>>>> enough work to fill my weeks with 8.5 leaving little or no time to "start over". Looking at some of the stuff that is being posted leave me with the feeling that using 9 will be like starting over. While that may not be true - since I haven't the time to try it really - that's the impression I am getting. Maybe after the summer is over and the days turn cold and dark I will be more inclined...
>>>>>>> Marc
>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So stop staring blankly at your screen, wipe that drool from your chin, and start
>>>>> asking stupid Lasso 9 questions!
>>>>>>> -- Marc Pinnell
>>>>>>> 1027 Design
>>>>>>> PO Box 990872
>>>>>>> Redding, CA 96099-0872
>>>>>>> 530.941.4706
>>>>>>> fax: 866.232.5300
>>>>>>> www.1027Design.com
>>>>>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerGuy3
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
>>>> Steve Piercy Web Site Builder Soquel, CA
>>>> <web@[Protected]> <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Marc Pinnell
>>> 1027 Design
>>> PO Box 990872
>>> Redding, CA 96099-0872
>>> 530.941.4706
>>> fax: 866.232.5300
>>> www.1027Design.com
>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerGuy3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
> --
> Marc Pinnell
> 1027 Design
> PO Box 990872
> Redding, CA 96099-0872
> 530.941.4706
> fax: 866.232.5300
> www.1027Design.com
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoccerGuy3

HI, Tim:

Thanks, but the link did not work.

What other languages support this type of feature?

Deco




On Jul 31, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Tim Taplin wrote:

> This is the mulltiple dispatch feature which allows you to define multiple versions of the same method and let lasso use the most appropriate version at tinting. More accurate description at http://lassosoft.wiki.soho.com/Defining-Methods.html particularly the multiple dispatch section toward the bottom.
>
> Tim
> Sent from my iPod
>
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Deco Rior <decorior@[Protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 1:31 AM, list@[Protected] wrote:
>>
>>> define variable(pr::pair) => var(#pr->first = #pr->second)
>>> define variable(k) => var(#k)
>>
>>
>> i have not spend much time with Lasso 9, but could you explain the above
>>
>> In most OO languages you define a method and then overload the constructor to deal with different parameters. this looks like you are defining the method twice? Is this just a "shortcut?" Are their other languages that do this. (I think in general you only define a method once so it can easily be resolved after compiling).
>>
>> Are the signatures just constructors?
>>
>> Deco

>Yes, I thought it meant that the NZ and Aussie lasso codes would be
expelled form the country after it was returned to their native population.

It's nice that you are think of us!! We would spell it "decolonising" :-)

Very best regards,

Rick

Try:
http://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Defining-Methods.html

--steve


On 7/31/10 at 3:34 PM, decorior@[Protected] (Deco Rior) pronounced:

> HI, Tim:
>
> Thanks, but the link did not work.
>
> What other languages support this type of feature?
>
> Deco
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Tim Taplin wrote:
>
> > This is the mulltiple dispatch feature which allows you to define multiple versions
> of the same method and let lasso use the most appropriate version at tinting. More
> accurate description at http://lassosoft.wiki.soho.com/Defining-Methods.html
> particularly the multiple dispatch section toward the bottom.
> >
> > Tim
> > Sent from my iPod
> >
> > On Jul 31, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Deco Rior <decorior@[Protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jul 31, 2010, at 1:31 AM, list@[Protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>> define variable(pr::pair) => var(#pr->first = #pr->second)
> >>> define variable(k) => var(#k)
> >>
> >>
> >> i have not spend much time with Lasso 9, but could you explain the above
> >>
> >> In most OO languages you define a method and then overload the constructor to deal
> with different parameters. this looks like you are defining the method twice? Is this
> just a "shortcut?" Are their other languages that do this. (I think in general you
> only define a method once so it can easily be resolved after compiling).
> >>
> >> Are the signatures just constructors?
> >>
> >> Deco
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> >
>
>
> --
>
>

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Steve Piercy Web Site Builder Soquel, CA
<web@[Protected]> <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>

Just being neighborly

On Jul 31, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Rick Draper wrote:

>
>> Yes, I thought it meant that the NZ and Aussie lasso codes would be
> expelled form the country after it was returned to their native population.
>
> It's nice that you are think of us!! We would spell it "decolonising" :-)
>
> Very best regards,
>
> Rick

Hold on a second. I think I misread it.

Is this just function/method overloading?
presumably the signature is

define variable(pr::pair)

and not

define variable(pr::pair) => var(#pr->first = #pr->second



On Jul 31, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Tim Taplin wrote:

> This is the mulltiple dispatch feature which allows you to define multiple versions of the same method and let lasso use the most appropriate version at tinting. More accurate description at http://lassosoft.wiki.soho.com/Defining-Methods.html particularly the multiple dispatch section toward the bottom.
>
> Tim
> Sent from my iPod
>
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Deco Rior <decorior@[Protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 1:31 AM, list@[Protected] wrote:
>>
>>> define variable(pr::pair) => var(#pr->first = #pr->second)
>>> define variable(k) => var(#k)
>>
>>
>> i have not spend much time with Lasso 9, but could you explain the above
>>
>> In most OO languages you define a method and then overload the constructor to deal with different parameters. this looks like you are defining the method twice? Is this just a "shortcut?" Are their other languages that do this. (I think in general you only define a method once so it can easily be resolved after compiling).
>>
>> Are the signatures just constructors?
>>
>> Deco

I decided this week to finally start learning lasso 9 and to do so by
converting my lassocookbook code from 8.5 to 9 and what's been killing
me is

1. Lasso 9 is a lot less forgiving than 8.5 was and,
2. I'm more of a learn a new language using "Rosetta Stone" type
learner than a "I want to know that there's something called an
'adverb' and what the definition of adverb is and all the ways it
could be used" type learner

But I do have to agree its very nice to see the line number of the
error in Lasso 9's error reporting - its been very helpful and is more
accurate than it was in Lasso 8.5.

That's saying, some things that worked just fine in Lasso 8.5 do not
work the same in Lasso 9 - Assignment and References (see http://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/What-Has-Changed.html#list-of-differences
) is a big change - and things will 'fail' without error b/c of this
depending on your code.

I guess I'll have to rtfm after all - using just the reference is not
enough. But I will keep posting to the list - you've been very
helpful this weekend , especially Ke and Tim T. Thanks!


On Jul 31, 2010, at 12:26 PM, Tim Taplin wrote:
>
> I've been trying to point out that the easiest way to get going in
> lasso9 is to keep writing your 8.5 code and run it on lasso9.
>
> Once you adjust to the fact that lasso9 is a little more strict, you
> wonder how you ever worked without the excellent error reporting and
> you'll find yourself starting to use bits of lasso9 syntax here and
> there intermingled with your 8.5 code where something clicks and
> being forced to look thru some of your old code, you'll be surprised
> at how many things you can improve while you're there.

Well I've been sitting in Zoho for twenty minutes logged in trying to add a bullet point or new area under something, but I'm not getting anywhere fast. Can we only edit the areas that are already created?

Any tips steve?

On Jul 31, 2010, at 2:53 AM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:

>
> Added to the wiki. But my fingers are getting tired. Come on y'all, pitch in!
> https://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Debugging-and-Troubleshooting.html

Brian Loomis
http://www.virtualrelations.us
(208) 639-2569 - 208 NEW BLOX
-- email checked daily --

possibly redundant suggestion but, you need to use the links that appear at the top of the page after you login. choosing the page item and selecting edit page from the menu that drops down will allow you to edit the page.

Hope that is helpful.

On Jul 31, 2010, at 8:34 PM, Brian Loomis wrote:

> Well I've been sitting in Zoho for twenty minutes logged in trying to add a bullet point or new area under something, but I'm not getting anywhere fast. Can we only edit the areas that are already created?
>
> Any tips steve?
>
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 2:53 AM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:
>
>>
>> Added to the wiki. But my fingers are getting tired. Come on y'all, pitch in!
>> https://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Debugging-and-Troubleshooting.html
>
> Brian Loomis
> http://www.virtualrelations.us
> (208) 639-2569 - 208 NEW BLOX
> -- email checked daily --

yeah I got that far, but couldn't seem to add sibling or child documents in a tree at all. I can't add extra areas, and can only edit exiting ones.

Brian

On Jul 31, 2010, at 8:43 PM, Tim Taplin wrote:

> possibly redundant suggestion but, you need to use the links that appear at the top of the page after you login. choosing the page item and selecting edit page from the menu that drops down will allow you to edit the page.
>
> Hope that is helpful.
>
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 8:34 PM, Brian Loomis wrote:
>
>> Well I've been sitting in Zoho for twenty minutes logged in trying to add a bullet point or new area under something, but I'm not getting anywhere fast. Can we only edit the areas that are already created?
>>
>> Any tips steve?
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 2:53 AM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Added to the wiki. But my fingers are getting tired. Come on y'all, pitch in!
>>> https://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Debugging-and-Troubleshooting.html
>>
>> Brian Loomis
>> http://www.virtualrelations.us
>> (208) 639-2569 - 208 NEW BLOX
>> -- email checked daily --
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>

Brian Loomis
http://www.virtualrelations.us
(208) 639-2569 - 208 NEW BLOX
-- email checked daily --

had to make sure you were at least that far.

I don't do much wiki or similar type of editing so I'm not certain but, given the wording of the section on wiki usage and requesting new pages, I'd venture that you'd have to request the addition of a new page or section.

If its reasonable, it may be worthwhile to insert your new content into the most relevant existing section or page and let the editors know that you felt it deserved its own page or section. Steve is pretty quick to create new pages when asked.

Tim
On Jul 31, 2010, at 8:50 PM, Brian Loomis wrote:

> yeah I got that far, but couldn't seem to add sibling or child documents in a tree at all. I can't add extra areas, and can only edit exiting ones.
>
> Brian
>
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 8:43 PM, Tim Taplin wrote:
>
>> possibly redundant suggestion but, you need to use the links that appear at the top of the page after you login. choosing the page item and selecting edit page from the menu that drops down will allow you to edit the page.
>>
>> Hope that is helpful.
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 8:34 PM, Brian Loomis wrote:
>>
>>> Well I've been sitting in Zoho for twenty minutes logged in trying to add a bullet point or new area under something, but I'm not getting anywhere fast. Can we only edit the areas that are already created?
>>>
>>> Any tips steve?
>>>
>>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 2:53 AM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Added to the wiki. But my fingers are getting tired. Come on y'all, pitch in!
>>>> https://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Debugging-and-Troubleshooting.html
>>>
>>> Brian Loomis
>>> http://www.virtualrelations.us
>>> (208) 639-2569 - 208 NEW BLOX
>>> -- email checked daily --
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
> Brian Loomis
> http://www.virtualrelations.us
> (208) 639-2569 - 208 NEW BLOX
> -- email checked daily --

Can you provide more details, specifically the steps you perform
to try to do something? It is possible that someone mucked up
the HTML and the WYSIWYG editor won't behave nicely. If that is
the case, you can toggle the view to HTML mode and beat it into submission.

This page provides some instructions for how to use the wiki.
https://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/How-to-Use-This-Wiki.html

--steve


On 7/31/10 at 8:34 PM, brian@[Protected] (Brian Loomis) pronounced:

>Well I've been sitting in Zoho for twenty minutes logged in
>trying to add a bullet point or new area under something, but
>I'm not getting anywhere fast. Can we only edit the areas that
>are already created?
>
>Any tips steve?
>
>On Jul 31, 2010, at 2:53 AM, Steve Piercy - Web Site Builder wrote:
>
>>
>>Added to the wiki. But my fingers are getting tired. Come on y'all, pitch in!
>>https://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Debugging-and-Troubleshooting.html
>
>Brian Loomis
>http://www.virtualrelations.us
>(208) 639-2569 - 208 NEW BLOX
>-- email checked daily --
>
>
>--
>
>

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- --
Steve Piercy Web Site Builder
Soquel, CA
<web@[Protected]> <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>

I don't know what you mean by "area". If you mean page:
https://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/How-to-Use-This-Wiki.html#How_to_suggest_a_new_wiki_page

How to suggest a new wiki page

Only Editors and Administrators can create a new wiki page. To
suggest a new wiki page, do the following.

1. Visit the Suggest a New Wiki Page.
<https://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Suggest-a-New-Wiki-Page.html>
2. Either submit a comment or edit the page.
3. The Editors and Administrators will review your comments or
edits and respond accordingly.

Otherwise editing an existing page requires that you login,
navigate to the page, then click the Edit button at the top.

--steve


On 7/31/10 at 8:50 PM, brian@[Protected] (Brian Loomis) pronounced:

>yeah I got that far, but couldn't seem to add sibling or child
>documents in a tree at all. I can't add extra areas, and can
>only edit exiting ones.
>
>Brian
>
>On Jul 31, 2010, at 8:43 PM, Tim Taplin wrote:
>
>>possibly redundant suggestion but, you need to use the links that appear at the top
>of the page after you login. choosing the page item and
>selecting edit page from the menu that drops down will allow
>you to edit the page.
>>
>>Hope that is helpful.
>>
>>On Jul 31, 2010, at 8:34 PM, Brian Loomis wrote:
>>
>>> Well I've been sitting in Zoho for twenty minutes logged in trying to add a bullet
>point or new area under something, but I'm not getting anywhere
>fast. Can we only edit the areas that are already created?
>>> Any tips steve?
>>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 2:53 AM, Steve Piercy - Web Site
>>>Builder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Added to the wiki. But my fingers are getting tired.
>>>>Come on y'all, pitch in!
>>>> https://lassosoft.wiki.zoho.com/Debugging-and-Troubleshooting.html
>>> Brian Loomis
>>> http://www.virtualrelations.us
>>> (208) 639-2569 - 208 NEW BLOX
>>> -- email checked daily --
>>> --
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>
>Brian Loomis
>http://www.virtualrelations.us
>(208) 639-2569 - 208 NEW BLOX
>-- email checked daily --
>
>
>--
>
>

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- --
Steve Piercy Web Site Builder
Soquel, CA
<web@[Protected]> <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>