[btedji]

Originally posted by Kaimetsu


I'm guessing things like:

string1=#s(string1)
message #s(string1);

It'd say "Oh, okay, so we'll go look in string1 for the correct value. Oh, alright, string1 points us to string1, so we'll go look there. Oh, alright, string1 points us to..." until it exploded. And obviously this is just a simple example. There are much more complicated possibilities, some of which wouldn't be intuitively obvious.

Personally I'd be against it one way or another. It goes against the principles of "real" programming and introduces lots of behind-the-scenes icky stuff.

But Stefan, when Graal turns scripts into bytecode, doesn't it lose the variable names and replace them with arbitrary tokens? So surely you wouldn't be able to construct a variable's name from strings and still expect it to point to the right place in memory, since the variable name doesn't mean anything anymore? I suppose strings are different, since their full names are stored in the flag list, but it could never work for variables, could it?

Add a timeout our somethin, like say if it loops for 15 seconds or 15 times without a result then cancel the command and go to the next