1. goto...
Hi,
let's end up the goto debate. The ones who wants GOTO, will
create their own interpreter, write GOTO apps that no other
could run, create new webpage www.rapidgotoeuphoria.com,
with section Goto User Contributions, and leave rest of us
in peace 
Regards,
Martin Stachon
martin.stachon at worldonline.cz
http://www.webpark.cz/stachon
2. goto...
>let's end up the goto debate.
I'll second that, Martin. But it has been fun. I've howled with glee
at each new post.
Having personally written some really awful code with arithmetic ifs and
other such jumps, and having also used breaks and continues wisely, I
agree with all sides of the debate and declare everyone a winner.
--Ken
3. Re: goto...
On 9 Feb 2002, at 3:04, kennethroger at prodigy.net wrote:
>
> >let's end up the goto debate.
>
> I'll second that, Martin. But it has been fun. I've howled with glee
> at each new post.
>
> Having personally written some really awful code with arithmetic ifs and
> other such jumps, and having also used breaks and continues wisely, I
> agree with all sides of the debate and declare everyone a winner.
>
> --Ken
>
Though I'd love to here a word or two from Rob. Hello Rob! Your time now!
-- Euler
4. Re: goto...
Euler German writes:
> Though I'd love to here a word or two from Rob.
> Hello Rob! Your time now!
I've stated many times in the past that I am
firmly opposed to adding a goto statement.
You'd have to pay me a million dollars.
(real U.S. dollars, not 62 cent Canadian dollars)
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
5. Re: goto...
On 9 Feb 2002, at 0:48, Robert Craig wrote:
>
> Euler German writes:
> > Though I'd love to here a word or two from Rob.
> > Hello Rob! Your time now!
>
> I've stated many times in the past that I am
> firmly opposed to adding a goto statement.
> You'd have to pay me a million dollars.
> (real U.S. dollars, not 62 cent Canadian dollars)
Since someone with the source code has added goto to the source code, i
pay should him for Eu from now on?
Kat
6. Re: goto...
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Feb 08, 2002
> Euler German writes:
> > Though I'd love to here a word or two from Rob.
> > Hello Rob! Your time now!
> Rob Craig wrote:
> I've stated many times in the past that I am
> firmly opposed to adding a goto statement.
> You'd have to pay me a million dollars.
> (real U.S. dollars, not 62 cent Canadian dollars)
Dang, looks like we'll certainly end up with one now
that Rob said that...
place your bets?
Oh wait a minute, Karl say's he already has "goto's" functioning.
Just a matter of time till.....
Euman
euman at bellsouth.net
7. Re: goto...
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Feb 08, 2002
From: "Kat" <gertie at PELL.NET>
> On 9 Feb 2002, at 0:48, Robert Craig wrote:
>
> >
> > Euler German writes:
> > > Though I'd love to here a word or two from Rob.
> > > Hello Rob! Your time now!
> >
> > I've stated many times in the past that I am
> > firmly opposed to adding a goto statement.
> > You'd have to pay me a million dollars.
> > (real U.S. dollars, not 62 cent Canadian dollars)
>
> Since someone with the source code has added goto to the source code, i
> pay should him for Eu from now on?
>
> Kat
I think it a share the wealth sortof thing going on in Robs head.
You have to pay him for Euphoria and pay anyone who develops
extra's into the language.
Im not the Wizard behind the curtain (Rob is) but I think Rob might be
becoming bored (or tired) of having the hassle of all us.
(Just a guess, if your not then sorry Wizard.)
So he (Rob) has devised a method (license) that say's ok you can extend
Euphoria but you cant do certain thing I say, the rest is OK
and you can even sell it to make big bucks.
Then all the questions will lie in the hands of people that
created the extra's and when they're gone from the face of the earth
you'll be stuck with something without support and you'll be back
to asking Rob about "Goto's" or whatever again.
But, still paying the Wizard...
I might be wrong but this is certainly how I see it...
Maybe it's time to crack open some C books, huh?
Meeooww on that a while.... 
Euman
euman at bellsouth.net
8. Re: goto...
On 9 Feb 2002, at 1:13, euman at bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > Euler German writes:
> > > Though I'd love to here a word or two from Rob.
> > > Hello Rob! Your time now!
>
> > Rob Craig wrote:
>
> > I've stated many times in the past that I am
> > firmly opposed to adding a goto statement.
> > You'd have to pay me a million dollars.
> > (real U.S. dollars, not 62 cent Canadian dollars)
>
>
> Dang, looks like we'll certainly end up with one now
> that Rob said that...
For real, especially since $50 x 20,000 users IS a $million! And surely there
are 20,000 VB users just ticked off enough at microsoft to give Eu a try?
> place your bets?
>
> Oh wait a minute, Karl say's he already has "goto's" functioning.
> Just a matter of time till.....
How about it, Karl?
Kat
9. Re: goto...
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998-
Hi Kat, you wrote on 2/8/02 11:12:20 PM:
> Oh wait a minute, Karl say's he already has "goto's" functioning.
> Just a matter of time till.....
>
>How about it, Karl?
>
>Kat
>
I have added:
variable initializers -- sequence s="Hi", t="Hello"
slicing shorthands -- t[2..]
enhanced '?' -- ?t --> {"Hello"}
goto -- :loop: goto loop
Coming:
Reference Parameters -- done
structures (classes without methods) -- 1/2 done
classes -- to be done
I intend to sell the result ($25), and I suppose I
could also sell the modified source to anyone who could
prove that they own Rob's source.
The first 3 'convenience' features are pleasant to
have, but somewhat less useful than I had expected. I
suspect that goto will be the same.
I am hopeful that classes will be an addition of
greater significance.
Karl Bochert
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998---
10. Re: goto...
On Saturday 09 February 2002 12:08 pm, kbochert at ix.netcom.com wrote:
> I have added:
> variable initializers -- sequence s="Hi", t="Hello"
> slicing shorthands -- t[2..]
> enhanced '?' -- ?t --> {"Hello"}
> goto -- :loop: goto loop
> Coming:
> Reference Parameters -- done
> structures (classes without methods) -- 1/2 done
> classes -- to be done
>
> I intend to sell the result ($25), and I suppose I
> could also sell the modified source to anyone who could
> prove that they own Rob's source.
>
> The first 3 'convenience' features are pleasant to
> have, but somewhat less useful than I had expected. I
> suspect that goto will be the same.
As long as they don't impact the speed or reliability, then
these additions (which have been asked for repeatedly)
will be welcome. Especially the ? for strings.
They may seem minor if used once or twice in a short progam, but
when you get 10,000 lines or more of code, little savings add up.
> I am hopeful that classes will be an addition of
> greater significance.
No doubt. Put me on the list.
Regards,
Irv
11. Re: goto...
On 9 Feb 2002, at 15:54, Irv Mullins wrote:
>
> On Saturday 09 February 2002 12:08 pm, kbochert at ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > I have added:
> > variable initializers -- sequence s="Hi", t="Hello"
> > slicing shorthands -- t[2..]
> > enhanced '?' -- ?t --> {"Hello"}
> > goto -- :loop: goto loop
> > Coming:
> > Reference Parameters -- done
> > structures (classes without methods) -- 1/2 done
> > classes -- to be done
> >
> > I intend to sell the result ($25), and I suppose I
> > could also sell the modified source to anyone who could
> > prove that they own Rob's source.
> >
> > The first 3 'convenience' features are pleasant to
> > have, but somewhat less useful than I had expected. I
> > suspect that goto will be the same.
>
> As long as they don't impact the speed or reliability, then
> these additions (which have been asked for repeatedly)
> will be welcome. Especially the ? for strings.
>
> They may seem minor if used once or twice in a short progam, but
> when you get 10,000 lines or more of code, little savings add up.
>
> > I am hopeful that classes will be an addition of
> > greater significance.
>
> No doubt. Put me on the list.
Ditto, i agree 100%. The loops of "while", "if", and "goto" won't be used in
every program for everything, but used when needed. Let me know when you
will be releasing it, Karl, and i'll borrow <sigh> some money to get the
official
release from Rob to put your code into. How will you be doing this? And will
your code self install into the PD version? I hope you will be releasing a
direct replacement for eu.ex and eu.exw, and not something we must find a
compiler for an learn compiling tricks ourselves?
Kat
12. Re: goto...
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998-
Hi Kat, you wrote on 2/9/02 3:41:20 PM:
>Ditto, i agree 100%. The loops of "while", "if", and "goto" won't be used
>in
>every program for everything, but used when needed. Let me know when you
>will be releasing it, Karl, and i'll borrow <sigh> some money to get the
>official
>release from Rob to put your code into. How will you be doing this? And
>will
>your code self install into the PD version? I hope you will be releasing
a
>direct replacement for eu.ex and eu.exw, and not something we must find a
>compiler for an learn compiling tricks ourselves?
>
>Kat
>
As I understand it, you would not need to buy the RDS package.
My Euphoria extensions can only have the capabilities of the
PD version, plus the extensions I add, and is therefore free
as far as RDS is concerned. RDS sells the Binding,
Tracing, Translating and Profiling capabilities, and I do
not know if they apply only to RDS Euphoria code, or work
on extended programs as well.
I am compiling the source code using LCC on Windows, to generate exw.exe.
I assume that I can generate an ex.exe version fairly easily. I would
then be in a position to distribute a windows or dos executeable along
with some documentation, which I believe is legal under Rob's licence.
Unix may take a little longer, unless someone is willing to get the
modified source and compile it themselves.
Speed: These modifications slow down Euphoria by an infinitesimal amount.
Unfortunately, using LCC instead of Watcom for compilation slows the
interpreter by about 20%. (Watcom is GOOD). Watcom is not currently
available but I may switch to Borland (about 10% slower than Watcom).
Getting the code to (appear to) work is only half the battle,
but the thought that someone might actually buy it should
spur my efforts.
There may be errors above -- corrections are welcome.
Karl Bochert
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998---
13. Re: goto...
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Feb 09, 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: <kbochert at ix.netcom.com>
>I am compiling the source code using LCC on Windows, to generate exw.exe.
>I assume that I can generate an ex.exe version fairly easily. I would
>then be in a position to distribute a windows or dos executeable along
>with some documentation, which I believe is legal under Rob's licence.
>Unix may take a little longer, unless someone is willing to get the
>modified source and compile it themselves.
>Speed: These modifications slow down Euphoria by an infinitesimal amount.
>Unfortunately, using LCC instead of Watcom for compilation slows the
>interpreter by about 20%. (Watcom is GOOD). Watcom is not currently
>available but I may switch to Borland (about 10% slower than Watcom).
>Getting the code to (appear to) work is only half the battle,
>but the thought that someone might actually buy it should
>spur my efforts.
>There may be errors above -- corrections are welcome.
>Karl Bochert
Hey Karl, I wrote this 5 Dec 2001
Hey Yall,
OpenWatcom is available as most of you know. The Beta to 11c does compile
Euphoria
Translated Code and runs faster than LCC or Borland but you have to know a few
tricks to get
Watcom to work at all because the libraries and header files arent included in
the beta release.
I have the solution to this problem!
Download and install Watcom 11c beta
Download and install Masm32 v7 (I think) by Hutch
Transfer the library files from :\Masm32\lib -to- :\Watcom\lib386\nt
Then Setup your Autoexec.bat file
Here is a sample that sets up the path for Watcom
SET EUDIR=D:\EUPHORIA
SET WATCOM=D:\WATCOM
SET PATH=%WATCOM%\BINNT;%WATCOM%\BINW;%PATH%
SET EDPATH=%WATCOM%\EDDAT
SET INCLUDE=%WATCOM%\H;%WATCOM%\MFC\INCLUDE;%WATCOM%\H\NT
SET PATH=%PATH%;D:\EUPHORIA\BIN;D:\Borland\Bcc55\Bin;D:\Lcc\Bin;D:\TC
make sure to reboot so changes will take affect!
Run the Euphoria translator on your code then run emake.bat and your C files
will
be assembled and linked, disregard the Graph.lib message and your Watcom
generated executable is ready.
I havent encountered any problem with it and I have many successfull compiles
using this. One draw back is the HUGE D/L.
Euman
euman at bellsouth.net
14. Re: goto...
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998-
You wrote on 2/9/02 5:44:23 PM:
>Hey Yall,
>
>OpenWatcom is available as most of you know. The Beta to 11c does compile
>Euphoria
>Translated Code and runs faster than LCC or Borland but you have to know a
>few tricks to get
>Watcom to work at all because the libraries and header files arent
>included in the beta
>release.
>I have the solution to this problem!
>
>Download and install Watcom 11c beta
>Download and install Masm32 v7 (I think) by Hutch
>
>...
>
>I havent encountered any problem with it and I have many successfull
>compiles
>using this. One draw back is the HUGE D/L.
>Euman
>euman at bellsouth.net
>
Checking my computer, I discover that I got as far as downloading
masm32 before getting distracted by something or other.
Thanx for reminding me.
Karl
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998---
15. Re: goto...
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998-
You wrote on 2/9/02 5:44:23 PM:
>
>Download and install Watcom 11c beta
>Download and install Masm32 v7 (I think) by Hutch
>
>
Now it comes back to me. I downloaded Masm32, and
unzipped it to discover a single install.exe file
and chickened out. What does the exe do? What
registry entries? what dll's replaced? Do you
happen to know?
install.exe's are scary!
Karl
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998---
16. Re: goto...
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Feb 09, 2002
>Checking my computer, I discover that I got as far as downloading
>masm32 before getting distracted by something or other.
>Thanx for reminding me.
>Karl
No prob, I have compiled the Euphoria Source (alpha and beta) No probs here.
Euman
17. Re: goto...
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Feb 09, 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: <kbochert at ix.netcom.com>
You wrote on 2/9/02 5:44:23 PM:
>Now it comes back to me. I downloaded Masm32, and
>unzipped it to discover a single install.exe file
>and chickened out. What does the exe do? What
>registry entries? what dll's replaced? Do you
>happen to know?
>install.exe's are scary!
>Karl
Hey Karl,
I always run a Filemonitor and use Configsafe on my machine
as well as two seperate virus scanners when I install something.
Filemon for Windows NT/2000/9x
Copyright (C) 1996-2000 Mark Russinovich and Bryce Cogswell Sysinternals
www.sysinternals.com
My Configsafe is commercial so I dont know if you can get a free one off the
Net.
Install.exe from Hutch for Masm32 is SAFE, I always check-up on that first.
masm32v7.zip 5.09MB(5,339,702 bytes), 5,341,184 bytes used.
Dont take my word for it though, be safe.
Euman
euman at bellsouth.net
18. Re: goto...
Hi Karl,
So, your Euphoria would be the PD core + your extras?
This will be very frustrating if we get wothwhile features but
can't bind or translate. I don't particularly need goto (although
I fully support Kat's right to request it and then use it when/if
she gets it) but there are things I would like such as the
variable initialising and structures.
I also would like to see an improved method for calling dll's
even if the solution is just to wrap the method we use now in
a tidier syntax.
At the moment we do something like this....
atom aw_position
aw_position = allocate(24)
global function Morfit_engine_add_world( sequence world_file_name, sequence
world_directory_path, sequence bitmaps_directory_path, sequence myposition)
poke(aw_position, atom_to_float64(myposition[1]))
poke(aw_position+8, atom_to_float64(myposition[2]))
poke(aw_position+16, atom_to_float64(myposition[3]))
return
c_func(xMorfit_engine_add_world,{allocate_string(world_file_name),
allocate_string(world_directory_path),
allocate_string(bitmaps_directory_path),
aw_position}) -- returns Handle
end function
which might be nicer as something like this???......
dll_function Morfit_engine_add_world(string &world_file_name, string
&world_directory_path,
string &bitmaps_directory_path, float64[24]
&aw_position)
The interpreter could then when it encounters "string" do an
allocate_string() on the parameter
internally?
float64[24] in this case might actually be a 3 element sequence (in this
case XYZ coordinates),
so that Euphoria first does an allocation of 24 bytes of space and then
pokes each value of
the sequence into that space, additionally doing "atom_to_float64". Finally
it passes the pointers
to all of this to the dll when the actual function is called.
My limited experience of using dll's in Euphoria is that once the functions
are wrapped, they are
often much easier to use than with other languages. Getting there, however
can be torture.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: <kbochert at ix.netcom.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: goto...
Hi Kat, you wrote on 2/9/02 3:41:20 PM:
>Ditto, i agree 100%. The loops of "while", "if", and "goto" won't be used
>in
>every program for everything, but used when needed. Let me know when you
>will be releasing it, Karl, and i'll borrow <sigh> some money to get the
>official
>release from Rob to put your code into. How will you be doing this? And
>will
>your code self install into the PD version? I hope you will be releasing
a
>direct replacement for eu.ex and eu.exw, and not something we must find a
>compiler for an learn compiling tricks ourselves?
>
>Kat
>
As I understand it, you would not need to buy the RDS package.
My Euphoria extensions can only have the capabilities of the
PD version, plus the extensions I add, and is therefore free
as far as RDS is concerned. RDS sells the Binding,
Tracing, Translating and Profiling capabilities, and I do
not know if they apply only to RDS Euphoria code, or work
on extended programs as well.
I am compiling the source code using LCC on Windows, to generate exw.exe.
I assume that I can generate an ex.exe version fairly easily. I would
then be in a position to distribute a windows or dos executeable along
with some documentation, which I believe is legal under Rob's licence.
Unix may take a little longer, unless someone is willing to get the
modified source and compile it themselves.
Speed: These modifications slow down Euphoria by an infinitesimal amount.
Unfortunately, using LCC instead of Watcom for compilation slows the
interpreter by about 20%. (Watcom is GOOD). Watcom is not currently
available but I may switch to Borland (about 10% slower than Watcom).
Getting the code to (appear to) work is only half the battle,
but the thought that someone might actually buy it should
spur my efforts.
There may be errors above -- corrections are welcome.
Karl Bochert
19. Re: goto...
On Monday 11 February 2002 10:47 am, Mark Brown wrote:
> My limited experience of using dll's in Euphoria is that once the functions
> are wrapped, they are
> often much easier to use than with other languages. Getting there, however
> can be torture.
Yep. Along those lines, who can tell me an efficient way to wrap the
following so I can pass titles to a c routine: The way I've tried works
fine up to eight, but there's no use showing you that, because it fails with
a seg fault at nine or more.
gchar * titles[15] =
{"One","Two","Three","Four","Five","Six","Seven","Eight","Nine",
"Ten","Eleven","Twelve","Thirteen","Fourteen","Fifteen"};
Regards,
Irv
20. Re: goto...
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998-
Hi Mark Brown, you wrote on 2/11/02 7:47:35 AM:
>
>Hi Karl,
>
>So, your Euphoria would be the PD core + your extras?
>
>This will be very frustrating if we get wothwhile features but
>can't bind or translate.
It seems to me that it is in
RDS's interest to support these features for Euphoria
extensions, provided you BUY his binder and translator.
Also in this category are tracing and profiling.
I made a brief test to see if I could bind one of my programs
and it insisted on binding with RDS's interpreter. Apparently
bind.exe checksums the exw.exe file that it uses to
prevent binding with extensions.
I therefore would not hold out any hope for translating,
profiling or tracing either.
Sort of cripples any Euphoria extensions, doesn't it.
Karl
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998---
21. Re: goto...
Hi Karl,
I hope Rob can give us a solution for this.
I am strongly considering buying the source (curiosity....don't actually
think
I am up to doing anything with it!) but it doesn't seem worthwhile if I
can't bind/translate my code if it uses extensions.
I hope Rob can find his way to providing us with a binding/translating
solution which allows registered owners of Eu (perhaps if they have
purchased the whole suite) to create exe's with extensions and still
protect his business plan. Perhaps somewhere in the binding / translating
process a password might stop unregistered users from creating
exe's. Password held in an include? Maybe this is reason enough for
a better installer?
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: <kbochert at ix.netcom.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 5:36 AM
Subject: Re: goto...
Hi Mark Brown, you wrote on 2/11/02 7:47:35 AM:
>
>Hi Karl,
>
>So, your Euphoria would be the PD core + your extras?
>
>This will be very frustrating if we get wothwhile features but
>can't bind or translate.
It seems to me that it is in
RDS's interest to support these features for Euphoria
extensions, provided you BUY his binder and translator.
Also in this category are tracing and profiling.
I made a brief test to see if I could bind one of my programs
and it insisted on binding with RDS's interpreter. Apparently
bind.exe checksums the exw.exe file that it uses to
prevent binding with extensions.
I therefore would not hold out any hope for translating,
profiling or tracing either.
Sort of cripples any Euphoria extensions, doesn't it.
Karl
22. Re: goto...
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998-
Hi Mark Brown, you wrote on 2/12/02 1:25:51 AM:
>
>Hi Karl,
>
>I hope Rob can give us a solution for this.
>
>I am strongly considering buying the source (curiosity....don't actually
>think
>I am up to doing anything with it!) but it doesn't seem worthwhile if I
>can't bind/translate my code if it uses extensions.
>
>I hope Rob can find his way to providing us with a binding/translating
>solution which allows registered owners of Eu (perhaps if they have
>purchased the whole suite) to create exe's with extensions and still
>protect his business plan. Perhaps somewhere in the binding / translating
>process a password might stop unregistered users from creating
>exe's. Password held in an include? Maybe this is reason enough for
>a better installer?
>
>Mark
It seems to me that if you have the bind program, you are
already a registered user (or a thief!).
Personally, I can't see any business plan issues, but
the more I think about the technical issues, the more
difficult it seems. Bind combines the interpreter with
some shrouded code. The RDS interpreter can handle
shrouded code but knows no extensions. My interpreter
knows extensions but can't handle shrouded code.
Bind could be modified to be able to bind an arbitrary
interpreter with un-shrouded source (probably), but
then security is lost. While that wouldn't bother me,
it would reflect badly on Euphoria's capabilities.
Another possibilty I could imagine would be for the
interpreter to handle shrouded code by internally
converting it to plain text first. Less efficient,
and therefore probably not done that way now.
some speculations, at least
Karl
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998---
