Yes, that’s due to legacy support for very old code where
= was allowed in a query, and thus my note that it likely wasn’t the cause.
Given all your attention to detail it seems TextSniper may well have been the innocent cause of the stray extra spaces inserted in commands. there, it will be trying to make readable sense of the scanned text. In that context, script/code is very typical writing. Tinderbox may have coped with extra space—but it’s best not to rely on that.
The mis-named attribute seems the root cause here, but it’s useful to see how innocently some of the errors crept in, e.g. OCR-type software misunderstanding code as parsing with normal written English conventions.
Amen. As pre-digital Navy signals guy I still find myself reflexively using a crossing bar on zero (0 vs O), 7 (7 vs. 1) and Z (vertical bar for Z vs 2); working at speed under minimal red lighting clarity trumps aesthetics (this may ring a bell for some readers ). So, oddly, I didn’t gat quite the same prompt, even on opening the template. Why? Aesthetics. The font designer of the font (here Andale Mono) chose to reassert aesthetics and replace the zero-with-diagonal-bar (a normal zero with cross-strike) with a dot on the middle of the character.
No foul there though, as IIRC Andale Mono was designed for aiding machine OCR rather than human character recognition. But it does explain why just changing the ‘normal’ style of cross-strike zero failed to register as quickly as it did for Mark.
If anyone is still reading, one more tip, from experience. If the code isn’t working, but you’ve confidence it should (e.g. you’ve used the same commands elsewhere) and it is still failing, try re-typing the code from scratch. Ideally don’t touch-type whilst reading from the existing code. The trick works because, for instance, whereas the eye might read
if (… and see no issue when typing an if() from memory you are unlike to insert an unwanted space. Old-style human hack that’s got me out of the pickle in the past. Odd how our (proof)reading skills are nerfed when screen reading. I
mis miss errors on screen that I never do if reading the same text printed on paper.
[Edit: necessary post-edit correction in last line above proves my point. Only spotted that re-reading the article later on].