A redirection to this thread:

http://www.opserver.de/ubb7/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=343393#Post343393

Is there any interest putting this into the official release?

Using '->' in our scripts had the advantage of C compatibility, but the disadvantage that it looks more complicated to beginners.

I'm not sure - but we'll follow user's advices here. Please fill in the poll. Dependent on the result, we'll take over Firoball's modifications and write include scripts with '->' from now on.

'->' or '.' single choice
C compatibility: I prefer '->' in include scripts.	85%, 23 Votes
Easy look: I prefer '.' in include scripts.	15%, 4 Votes
Total Votes: 27 Voting on this poll ends: 10/21/10 10:58

I read about the pragma_pointer, but didn't understand what it is about.
I, personally don't have any education in any programming language, I simply use Lite-C as did use C-Script, and I prefer '.' by far.
This is sort of people who have a programming education background versus those who do not have such a background.
I prefer 'easy look' and I prefer this smaller sign, because that's what helps me to script faster, with less typing and less mistakes.
And, it is easier to teach it to beginners.

It is a bit about personal presets in general.
We always will have personal preferences and personal codes that we include by default on our pc. I don't see a way to get rid of one's personal modifications, we just have to keep an extra folder with the parts that we copy into the new version after updating.

A few thoughts about this:
Which beginner actually looks into the acknex.h and default.c files? I for one never looked into one of these files, in fact I care about the include folder as much as I care about water on the mars: don't.

However, I took a look into the files and must say: Where is the problem with -> vs .? The files are already complicated enough for beginners, it wouldn't get any more complicated or "nicer" by making its own scripts incompatible with its own compiler.

One last thing: If a users enables pragma_pointer and suddenly everything refuses to compile, even the conitec ones, wouldn't this make everything much more complicated?

Okay, a question:
am I still able to use '.' instead of '->', if '->' gets included in the acknex.h and default.c files?
If yes, I don't care, but I thought, if there is a poll about this matter, it must be something with serious consequences, f.i. that I can't use '.' anymore.

If I secretly replaced your inlcude files with the modified ones from Firoball overnight, you wouldn't even notice. At least scripting-wise.
So yes, you can still script the way you're used to. There won't be a difference.

Looks as if the majority voted for the C/C++ syntax. We'll then gratefully take over Firoball's modifications and will write include scripts and macros with pointer symbols from now on. The shadow library was already written using the pointer symbol.