Error: Missing operand

[Alan Griffin]

When I boot up my computer (Risc PC 600 with SA) I suddenly keep
getting the message "Missing operand" which is not very helpful, just
before it loads in all the programs such as Impression.

Any ideas?
Alan Griffin

[Tony Moore]

Reporter, from http://www.avisoft.force9.co.uk/Reporter.htm , will tell
you what caused the error. If you're not familiar with it, menu over the
application, and open the Help file. Then click 'Main faciliities', and
click '!Boot', in line two of that window. That will open 'Starting
Reporter for !Boot Logging', which explains how to use it.

Tony

[Tim Hill]

In article <534ece...@argonet.co.uk>,

I see this sometimes from an obey file run from a task alarm in
Organiser. It contains:

ADFS::HardDisc4.$.!Files.Files.!YT. .reWWW.WebCounter

to open a fireworks document once a week alongside another.

What I don't understand is that if it's because of the directory called
<hard space> it only causes an error sometimes. The last time was no
problem so I wonder if it's an occasional Fireworks thing. There are two
files which are loaded in quick succession and I wonder if Fireworks can
be confused.

--
from Tim Hill who welcomes incoming email to tim at timil dot com.
* Share in a better energy supplier: http://tjrh.eu/coopnrg
* Share in cheaper ethical telecoms: http://tjrh.eu/phone
* Have a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/

[Alan Griffin]

In article <90fad34e53.old_coaster@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk>, Tony Moore

Thanks for your help.
I've done that, but it doesn't mention the "missing operand" error
message!

Alan

[Martin]

On 20 May, in article <534edc...@argonet.co.uk>,

Alan Griffin <a...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> I've done that, but it doesn't mention the "missing operand" error
> message!

If you are Reporting Commands and Errors from Boot, you should see *lots*
(~8000?) of messages after you boot, starting with ** Loaded Reporter
v2.67 **

If you do, save the file and search for missing.
If you do not have all the messages, investigate why!

Presumably the 'missing operand' message was in a normal error box?

Martin

--
Martin Avison
Note that unfortunately this email address will become invalid
without notice if (when) any spam is received.

[Richard Torrens (News)]

In article <534ed6...@invalid.org.uk>,

Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <534ece...@argonet.co.uk>,
> Alan Griffin <a...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > When I boot up my computer (Risc PC 600 with SA) I suddenly keep
> > getting the message "Missing operand" which is not very helpful, just
> > before it loads in all the programs such as Impression.

> > Any ideas?
> > Alan Griffin

> I see this sometimes from an obey file run from a task alarm in
> Organiser. It contains:

> ADFS::HardDisc4.$.!Files.Files.!YT. .reWWW.WebCounter

> to open a fireworks document once a week alongside another.

> What I don't understand is that if it's because of the directory called
> <hard space> it only causes an error sometimes. The last time was no
> problem so I wonder if it's an occasional Fireworks thing. There are two
> files which are loaded in quick succession and I wonder if Fireworks can
> be confused.

I don't know about Fireworks, but loading two files in quick succesion
certainly causes problems. Use the WaitUntil module by VinceH/Soft Rock
Software http://www.softrock.co.uk/products/index.html#rosother

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. News email address is valid - for a limited time only.
http://www.Torrens.org.uk for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats
and more!

[Alan Griffin]

In article <534f4038...@avisoft.f9.co.uk>,

Martin <New...@avisoft.f9.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20 May, in article <534edc...@argonet.co.uk>,
> Alan Griffin <a...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > I've done that, but it doesn't mention the "missing operand" error
> > message!

> If you are Reporting Commands and Errors from Boot, you should see
> *lots* (~8000?) of messages after you boot, starting with ** Loaded
> Reporter v2.67 **

I've got 85 lines.Have I failed to tick something?

> If you do, save the file and search for missing. If you do not have
> all the messages, investigate why!

> Presumably the 'missing operand' message was in a normal error box?

Yes, with a RISC OS cube (4) in it.

Alan

[Martin]

On 21 May, in article <534f55...@argonet.co.uk>,

Alan Griffin <a...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <534f4038...@avisoft.f9.co.uk>,
> Martin <New...@avisoft.f9.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 20 May, in article <534edc...@argonet.co.uk>,
> > Alan Griffin <a...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > I've done that, but it doesn't mention the "missing operand" error
> > > message!

> > If you are Reporting Commands and Errors from Boot, you should see
> > *lots* (~8000?) of messages after you boot, starting with ** Loaded
> > Reporter v2.67 **

> I've got 85 lines.Have I failed to tick something?

Probably!
Have you read the Help file on 'Starting Reporter for !Boot Logging'?

If not, see Help -> Starting Reporter -> !Boot for details.

[Tim Hill]

In article <534f5fb0cenews*@Torrens.org.uk>, Richard Torrens (News)

<News+...@Torrens.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <534ed6...@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > In article <534ece...@argonet.co.uk>, Alan Griffin
> > <a...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > When I boot up my computer (Risc PC 600 with SA) I suddenly keep
> > > getting the message "Missing operand" which is not very helpful,
> > > just before it loads in all the programs such as Impression.

> > > Any ideas? Alan Griffin

> > I see this sometimes from an obey file run from a task alarm in
> > Organiser. It contains:

> > ADFS::HardDisc4.$.!Files.Files.!YT. .reWWW.WebCounter

> > to open a fireworks document once a week alongside another.

> > What I don't understand is that if it's because of the directory
> > called <hard space> it only causes an error sometimes. The last time
> > was no problem so I wonder if it's an occasional Fireworks thing.
> > There are two files which are loaded in quick succession and I wonder
> > if Fireworks can be confused.

> I don't know about Fireworks, but loading two files in quick succesion
> certainly causes problems. Use the WaitUntil module by VinceH/Soft Rock
> Software http://www.softrock.co.uk/products/index.html#rosother

That's a tempting solution. As my files are run from Organizer, maybe not
as straightforward as it seems...however, anything's worth a try.

Okay. I have installed WaitUntil in my Library and added
WaitUntil Elapsed 50
in the obey file which runs the errant Fireworks file.

Fingers crossed.

[Vince M Hudd]

Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <534f5fb0cenews*@Torrens.org.uk>, Richard Torrens (News)
> <News+...@Torrens.org.uk> wrote:

[...]

> > I don't know about Fireworks, but loading two files in quick succesion
> > certainly causes problems. Use the WaitUntil module by VinceH/Soft Rock
> > Software http://www.softrock.co.uk/products/index.html#rosother

> That's a tempting solution. As my files are run from Organizer, maybe not
> as straightforward as it seems...however, anything's worth a try.

Whether introducing a delay using WaitUntil will solve your actual problem,
I don't know - but if Organizer works how I think it does, then WaitUntil
should work fine with it when set up as you say you have.

[...]

--
Soft Rock Software: http://www.softrock.co.uk
Vince M Hudd: http://misc.vinceh.com/about-vinceh/
RISCOSitory: http://www.riscository.com

[Tim Hill]

In article <mpro.mn9gvv000...@softrock.co.uk>, Vince M Hudd

<vin...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > In article <534f5fb0cenews*@Torrens.org.uk>, Richard Torrens (News)
> > <News+...@Torrens.org.uk> wrote:

> [...]

> > > I don't know about Fireworks, but loading two files in quick
> > > succesion certainly causes problems. Use the WaitUntil module by
> > > VinceH/Soft Rock Software
> > > http://www.softrock.co.uk/products/index.html#rosother
>
> > That's a tempting solution. As my files are run from Organizer, maybe
> > not as straightforward as it seems...however, anything's worth a try.

> Whether introducing a delay using WaitUntil will solve your actual
> problem, I don't know - but if Organizer works how I think it does,
> then WaitUntil should work fine with it when set up as you say you have.

That problem resurfaced this morning and I see that a previous attempt to
avoid the problem was to run the file directly and have the two task
alarms set minutes apart but when that time has passed when the machine
is switched on, Organizer can attempt to run those files in quick
succession such that the error occurs and I now understand why it was
only sometimes. I have reset the repeating alarm to use the Obey file
with a preceding WaitUntil now so I will just have to wait until the
error recurs, if it ever does.

I wonder what the minimum setting for Elapsed ought to be? I am using
half a second which ought to be an eternity even to Myonix.

[Richard Torrens (News)]

In article <53514e...@invalid.org.uk>,

Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> That problem resurfaced this morning and I see that a previous attempt to
> avoid the problem was to run the file directly and have the two task
> alarms set minutes apart but when that time has passed when the machine
> is switched on, Organizer can attempt to run those files in quick
> succession such that the error occurs and I now understand why it was
> only sometimes. I have reset the repeating alarm to use the Obey file
> with a preceding WaitUntil now so I will just have to wait until the
> error recurs, if it ever does.

> I wonder what the minimum setting for Elapsed ought to be? I am using
> half a second which ought to be an eternity even to Myonix.

I would do a single Obey file which organizer calls.

The obey file can WaitUntil the first event, then call the second.

I have several such obey files.

[Tim Hill]

In article <53537fe068news*@Torrens.org.uk>, Richard Torrens (News)

<News+...@Torrens.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <53514e...@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > That problem resurfaced this morning and I see that a previous
> > attempt to avoid the problem was to run the file directly and have
> > the two task alarms set minutes apart but when that time has passed
> > when the machine is switched on, Organizer can attempt to run those
> > files in quick succession such that the error occurs and I now
> > understand why it was only sometimes. I have reset the repeating
> > alarm to use the Obey file with a preceding WaitUntil now so I will
> > just have to wait until the error recurs, if it ever does.

> > I wonder what the minimum setting for Elapsed ought to be? I am using
> > half a second which ought to be an eternity even to Myonix.

> I would do a single Obey file which organizer calls.

> The obey file can WaitUntil the first event, then call the second.

> I have several such obey files.

Is that because you have seen errors when two /Fireworkz/ files are
Filer_Run too close together?

It's an interesting idea. I will try the two files with the waituntil
between them as it is always the second of two pipedream files which
cause this problem. I think the OS is trying to Filer_Run the second one
before Fireworkz has finished starting up.

[Tim Hill]

In article <535508...@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk>
wrote:

[Snip]

> It's an interesting idea. I will try the two files with the waituntil
> between them as it is always the second of two pipedream files which
> cause this problem. I think the OS is trying to Filer_Run the second
> one before Fireworkz has finished starting up.

What you said. I mean that the two files are listed in one obey file with
the waituntil between them.

[Vince M Hudd]

Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <535508...@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk>
> wrote:

> [Snip]

> > It's an interesting idea. I will try the two files with the waituntil
> > between them as it is always the second of two pipedream files which
> > cause this problem. I think the OS is trying to Filer_Run the second one
> > before Fireworkz has finished starting up.

> What you said. I mean that the two files are listed in one obey file with
> the waituntil between them.

You know how you had to say "D'oh" about that Pluto reference on Twitter the
other day?

Well, that's what I said just now when I read your posts.

What you've described above is what I thought you meant previously, when I
said I thought that should work. :)

[Tim Hill]

In article <mpro.mnq66w013...@softrock.co.uk>, Vince M Hudd

<vin...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > In article <535508...@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> > <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > [Snip]
>
> > > It's an interesting idea. I will try the two files with the
> > > waituntil between them as it is always the second of two pipedream
> > > files which cause this problem. I think the OS is trying to
> > > Filer_Run the second one before Fireworkz has finished starting up.
>
> > What you said. I mean that the two files are listed in one obey file
> > with the waituntil between them.

> You know how you had to say "D'oh" about that Pluto reference on
> Twitter the other day?

> Well, that's what I said just now when I read your posts.

:-)

> What you've described above is what I thought you meant previously,
> when I said I thought that should work. :)

To recap for the confused:

Initially, both Fireworkz files were filer_run by task alarms at 9.01 and
9.02. This caused an error sometimes when the computer was switched on
later than this and the task alarms both 'went off' almost
simultaneously.

Then I added WaitUntil and the only difference to previously was that one
Fireworkz file was still filer_run directly by a task alarm (at 9.01) and
the other was in an obey file, preceded by WaitUntil, (at 9.02). This
did avoid the error and work, of course, but it makes more sense and will
be clearer to me in three month's time with one task alarm and both
filer_runs in the same obey file with waituntil between them. ;-)

[Richard Torrens (News)]

In article <535508...@invalid.org.uk>,

Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> Is that because you have seen errors when two /Fireworkz/ files are
> Filer_Run too close together?

No: PipeDream files - which probaably amounts to the same thing.

> It's an interesting idea. I will try the two files with the waituntil
> between them as it is always the second of two pipedream files which
> cause this problem. I think the OS is trying to Filer_Run the second one
> before Fireworkz has finished starting up.

We have an added problem because such things are done over the network.

[Tim Hill]

In article <5356225f1anews*@Torrens.org.uk>, Richard Torrens (News)

<News+...@Torrens.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <535508...@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > Is that because you have seen errors when two /Fireworkz/ files are
> > Filer_Run too close together?

> No: PipeDream files - which probaably amounts to the same thing.

> > It's an interesting idea. I will try the two files with the waituntil
> > between them as it is always the second of two pipedream files which
> > cause this problem. I think the OS is trying to Filer_Run the second
> > one before Fireworkz has finished starting up.

> We have an added problem because such things are done over the network.

Well, low and behold. the error is back this morning. My first Fireworkz
file has quite a few graphs embedded and must take longer that half a
second to untwist its knickers.
I have changed my obey file to

<filer run first Fireworkz file>

WaitUntil Elapsed 500

<filer run second Fireworkz file>

and seems to fix it. Does make me think though that Fireworkz should have
some code which delays the loading of a file until it's finished
displaying a previous one.

[Peter Young]

On 8 Jun 2013 Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <5356225f1anews*@Torrens.org.uk>, Richard Torrens (News)
> <News+...@Torrens.org.uk> wrote:
>> In article <535508...@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
>> <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Is that because you have seen errors when two /Fireworkz/ files are
>>> Filer_Run too close together?

>> No: PipeDream files - which probaably amounts to the same thing.

>>> It's an interesting idea. I will try the two files with the waituntil
>>> between them as it is always the second of two pipedream files which
>>> cause this problem. I think the OS is trying to Filer_Run the second
>>> one before Fireworkz has finished starting up.

>> We have an added problem because such things are done over the network.

> Well, low and behold. the error is back this morning. My first Fireworkz

^^^ Lo!

> file has quite a few graphs embedded and must take longer that half a
> second to untwist its knickers.

Isn't that because it takes a while displaying its splash screen when
first run, before it gets to the icon bar?

With best wishes,

Peter.

--
Peter Young (zfc Ta) and family
Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52, England
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
pny...@ormail.co.uk

[Tim Hill]

In article <400f8c585...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>, Peter Young

<pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2013 Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

[Snip]

> > Well, [lo] and behold. the error is back this morning. My first
> > Fireworkz

> > file has quite a few graphs embedded and must take longer that half a

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> > second to untwist its knickers.

> Isn't that because it takes a while displaying its splash screen when
> first run, before it gets to the icon bar?

It certainly is when it displays its splash but not sure about 'because'.

Why should that mean that the loading of the second file fails? Perhaps
someone with more experience of wimp/filer messages knows why.

[druck]

On 08/06/2013 13:49, Tim Hill wrote:
> In article <400f8c585...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>, Peter Young
> <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 8 Jun 2013 Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Isn't that because it takes a while displaying its splash screen when
>> first run, before it gets to the icon bar?
>
> It certainly is when it displays its splash but not sure about 'because'.
>
> Why should that mean that the loading of the second file fails? Perhaps
> someone with more experience of wimp/filer messages knows why.

If the first file is opened when Fireworkz isn't running, the filer will
start Fireworkz with the file as a command line parameter. Most
applications will start, initialise the Wimp and load the file,
returning to the desktop for the next wimp poll. As the application is
then running further attempts to load files will be via wimp data load
messages send to the applications, and it will then be in a position to
handle them.

However, if Fireworkz has a multi-tasking splash screen, but doesn't
handle data loads during from wimp_polls while it is displayed, further
attempts to load files wont function correctly. I suspect this is where
the missing operand error is coming from.

A suitable long wait to allow Fireworkz to start, display its splash
screen and finish loading and displaying the first file, will allow the
second file to load without errors.

---druck

[Vince M Hudd]

druck <ne...@druck.org.uk> wrote:

[...]

> A suitable long wait to allow Fireworkz to start, display its splash
> screen and finish loading and displaying the first file, will allow the
> second file to load without errors.

Indeed. Rather than use a timed delay - which are fine until something
causes things to take a bit longer, while a five second delay remains a five
second delay - a quick check reveals that there is a slightly better
approach which may work.

For both Fireworkz and Fireworkz Pro the splash screen is displayed by a
separate program, which is run before the main application and registers a
slightly different name with the wimp.

So rather than use WaitUntil's "Elapsed" condition, its "Running" condition
might be usable. It certainly should be for Fireworkz Pro, because
(usefully) the splash screen program registers as "FireworkzPro Splash" -
with no space before the "Pro". So for that version of Fireworkz this should
work:

<filer_run the first file>
WaitUntil Running "Fireworkz Pro"
<filer_run the second file>

For the non-pro version, it's not so easy - but something like this might do
the trick:

<filer_run the first file>
WaitUntil Running Fireworkz
WaitUntil !Running Splash
<filer_run the second file>

The first WaitUntil delays continuation of the obey file until it detects
that there's an app running whose registered name includes "Fireworkz" -
which would be the splash screen program ("Fireworkz Splash"). Once that
condition is met, the second one comes into play and delays things until
there is *not* a program running that includes the word "Splash" in its
registered name.

The combined effect is that the obey file is paused while the splash screen
is loaded and is running, and continues when it quits. Note that the first
WaitUntil checks for "Fireworkz" rather than the word "Splash". If it
checked for the latter, and Fireworkz happened to be already loaded, it
would be a long wait.

That seems to work here - but none of my example files are particularly
large or complicated; if that does have a bearing then inserting a third
WaitUntil line, repeating what's in the first, should solve it.

[Tim Hill]

In article <mpro.mo57a301b...@softrock.co.uk>,

Vince M Hudd <vin...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> For the non-pro version, it's not so easy - but something like this
> might do the trick:

I will try that, thanks.