1. Re: we need official libs : Swap
- Posted by Roderick Jackson <rjackson at CSIWEB.COM>
Jul 20, 1999
-
Last edited Jul 21, 1999
Ferlin Scarborough wrote:
> Looks like we're starting to get into some of the SAME old arguments
>(or discussions) we have in the past, like with the short circuiting.
>IMHO if Robert decides to add something new, including syntactical
>changes, that's up to him.
Agreed. But let's be honest, I doubt he'll add something "just for the
fun of it." If there's a proposal to add a new element to the language, I
think he would want to hear both sides of the issue before committing to
a change. Plus, the number of voices on each side might be an influence as
well.
>But, if he leaves the other choices in there
>like he did before, then what does it hurt. If you like to code a line
>such as:
<snip "+=" example>
With the example you gave, I ALMOST agree with you. That addition was the
most innocuous in the 2.1 upgrade.
But surely you're not suggesting that the addition of a multi-assignment
construct would be similar in nature? This isn't something that simply
translates directly into another form. It adds another concept entirely. It
even goes beyond short-circuting. This wouldn't be something where you
could just not use it and be done with it. (If that were possible with *any*
new addition, then why should anything be forbidden?) The ramifactions
would affect the Euphoria language and the Euphoria community as a whole.
>My point being that you can't please ALL the people ALL the time.
Of course not. If Rob adds {}=, I don't plan on dropping the list in protest.
(Although if the language winds up straying too far from its original
moorings OVERALL, I think I'd be justified in no longer using it.)
But by no means am I going to sit on the sidelines and just HOPE he doesn't
implement something I think will be a detriment to the language. By goodness,
if I have a chance, I'm going to reason with him and try to show WHY I think
it'll be a detriment. If he doesn't agree with my reasoning, fine. That's
certainly his right. If so, all the better.
Rod
