The <== operator seems to be tripping up the procedure checking. If I use a standard = then this simple proc passes muster:
But changing to the <== causes code checking inside a comment:
The commented code is, of course, from Pan 6, but why is it being checked inside the comments?
The <== also seems to mess up other syntax checking, as it causes a normally OK proc containing nested IF-ENDIF statements to suddenly throw an ENDIF does not have a matching IF error when it is placed where an = sign was.
Thank you Jim. You didn’t mention the assignfieldwithsideeffects statement, so I’m wondering if that is also not currently available. The Help description for that is where I learned of the <== operator.
I originally tried replacing a <== with assignfieldwithsideeffects and have one line of code that hangs Pan X with a SBBoD.
I’ll switch to the runfield statements, thanks again.
The help where? I don’t see any such statement in the Panorama 6 Reference, which is what I use as my “bible” as far as Panama 6 goes. Perhaps this is somewhere in the PDF documentation? I have no recollection of this, or of <== either. And I just tried to create a procedure in Panorama 6 using these and I just got syntax errors. Maybe I’m just not using them correctly because I can’t find the documentation. I guess that doesn’t matter, these are definitely not available in Panorama X.
I don’t know why you folks are asking me questions of Panorama Clearly I don’t know a damn thing about it!
Apparently I wrote this in April 2017 and then completely forgot that it even existed. So that’s why I didn’t mention it. In spite of my memorly lapse, it is currently available and it should work.
So now we’re back to our original question. I don’t know the answer to this question, I could not duplicate this problem. I made code very similar to the code in your example and there was no syntax error checking in the comment. The code compiled without error and ran correctly. I wonder if maybe there are invisible characters that have snuck into your code somehow.
I’ll try to check on that when I can, I’ve had a few cases in the past that seemed to have been due to invisibles. That brings up a question I’ve been meaning to ask: Is there now, or might there be someday, a show invisibles function for procedures, like Nisus Writer has? It would be very handy!
I’ve just now copied my proc text into Nisus to use that feature, and I can immediately see that it would be very helpful if it were possible to dim the text, and show any invisibles except spaces, returns, and tabs, in bright pink. It is probably possible to do that in Nisus with a macro, but we can dream of having it in Panorama someday