1. Official Libs, swap(), OOP, etc.
------=_NextPart_000_0062_01BED498.D16AAFA0
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I've been following the swap() thread with considerable interest but no =
real enthusiasm--I hate to add to the heat, but here's my 2 cents worth. =
I LOVE Euphoria in its current incarnation. Like everyone, I would =
enjoy seeing Rob add cool new features--but IMHO it would be a serious =
mistake to change the basic concept of Euphoria. To my mind, borrowing =
+=3D from C doesn't change the basic concept, but {a,b}=3D{b,a} does. =
Is it worth adding that much conplication to the interpreter just to =
avoid code like
junk=3Da a=3Db b=3Djunk
I don't believe so. Now a preprocessor providing new language =
constructs is another question. This would be useable without changing =
the basic Euphoria language without afflicting those of us (probably a =
majority) who don't want it. I feel the same way about OOP. I would =
prefer that Rob NOT implement OOP--even if he were to choose my own =
Eclasses as his method!
As far as the technical/implementation issues are concerned, Rod Jackson =
argues the case far better than I could and I agree with him.
--Mike Nelson
------=_NextPart_000_0062_01BED498.D16AAFA0
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I've been following the swap() =
thread with=20
considerable interest but no real enthusiasm--I hate to add to the heat, =
but=20
here's my 2 cents worth. I <STRONG>LOVE</STRONG> Euphoria in its =
current=20
incarnation. Like everyone, I would enjoy seeing Rob add cool new=20
features--but IMHO it would be a serious mistake to change the basic =
concept of=20
Euphoria. To my mind, borrowing +=3D from C doesn't change the =
basic=20
concept, but {a,b}=3D{b,a} does. Is it worth adding that much =
conplication=20
to the interpreter just to avoid code like</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> junk=3Da a=3Db=20
b=3Djunk</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I don't believe so. Now a =
preprocessor=20
providing new language constructs is another question. This would =
be=20
useable without changing the basic Euphoria language without afflicting =
those of=20
us (probably a majority) who don't want it. I feel the same way =
about=20
OOP. I would prefer that Rob NOT implement OOP--even if he were to =
choose=20
my own Eclasses as his method!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>As far as the =
technical/implementation issues=20
are concerned, Rod Jackson argues the case far better than I could and I =
agree=20
with him.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>--Mike =
------=_NextPart_000_0062_01BED498.D16AAFA0--
