1. Re: crash_message
Here's another anology. What if a song writer decides not to do 'this' nor
'that' because some people out there might _not_ like it. You know how such
songs sound like ? MTV.
I don't think I need to explain the nonsense of the 'it can be
abused' -argument any more.
One down, triljoen more nonsense arguments to go ..
Ralf N.
> I personally would like to see such a feature. Abuse is a choice, and I
> don't want possible "bad choices" to impact my toolset. I mean, it aint a
> gun, it can't kill any one, so lets every one for him/her self carry the
> responsibility of using it right, or not. I mean, these discussions are so
> simple, poeple should have the freedom to do anything that could only
impact
> themselves, also true for programming languages. I would love to use goto
in
> some places, and could care less about the problems of those *not* using
it
> right. Let them deal with it, why should it have _any_ effect on Euphoria,
> and thus for me. Maybe a special version of Euphoria for sane and insane
> persons. exw, ex and exwnuts, exnuts. How about that ? Some of these
> discussions (goto, crash_message, etc.) are nothing more than a plain
insult
> to the human race and mean giving in to every possible problem. This way,
> the nuts already have won .. Noo!!! Well, ok, so i'm sarcastic .. I _am_
> trying to make a point.
>
> Back to the crash_message idea:
> I also know tons of places where even continueing would be a great
feature.
> I mean, say you have a program with a few 'stictly' seperated areas. For
> example, a game: a crash in the GUI would cause a message and continue:
(GDI
> errors are usually occur sporadically, if they occur), a crash in the
> gameloop would jump back to the menu, and try to connect online to look
for
> an updated version of the program, or to post the error code, line &
> context.
>
> Ralf N.
>
