1. Confirmation for 2.3
- Posted by aku at inbox.as
Aug 16, 2001
Will these be avaliable in 2.3 ?
1. ^ for power and % for remainder
2. object x = 123
3. without line length limit
4. linked lists
5. string = "abc" "def" becomes string = "abcdef"
6. "\000\001a" (for example) equals to {0,1,'a'}
7. native get_bytes(), not concenating the strings
8. getenv renamed to get_env
Thanks!
2. Re: Confirmation for 2.3
Aku writes:
> Will these be avaliable in 2.3 ?
No, none of them.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
3. Re: Confirmation for 2.3
- Posted by rossboyd at ihug.com.au
Aug 16, 2001
Hi Robert,
Can you very briefly tell us what you *are* adding/changing in version
2.3?
All this suspense is killing me! 
Regards,
Ross Boyd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Craig" <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: Confirmation for 2.3
>
> Aku writes:
> > Will these be avaliable in 2.3 ?
>
> No, none of them.
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
4. Re: Confirmation for 2.3
aku wrote:
>2. object x = 123
I agree, this would be a great addition.
[Idle speculation follows...]
It seems odd that you can define a constant like:
constant junk = "123"
and not be able to do the same with:
object junk = "123"
Obviously, the parser can handle the syntax.
Perhaps Robert thinks it's not sufficiently "Euphoric" or minimalistic. One
only has to look at the constant declaration to see that it's "Euphoric"; I
don't know what might be objectionable with the construct. I suppose you
could argue that it's not needed, since:
object junk junk = "123"
already takes care of that. But being able to assign the value where the
variable is declared means you are less likely to forget about it, leading
to better code. If my goal was to use a minimal language, I'd use a Turning
machine.
Another argument might be that the declaration section of the code is
seperate from the assignment section. But that's an artificial constuct of
the grammar - logically, it makes sense for the assignment to be bound with
the declaration.
Robert might take the "added value" argument, that the benefit of the
feature doesn't outweigh the cost of adding, testing, documenting... After
all, things work just fine without it. I have difficulty believing that
there is that much cost to adding this particular feature, and can't think
of any code that would break as a result.
There is perhaps some technical reason why this is difficult to implement.
Given that Robert is a professional compiler writer working with his own
program, I think this can be eliminated.
The only thing I can figure is that he just doesn't see that much demand for
it, so it's low on his priority list.
-- David Cuny
5. Re: Confirmation for 2.3
Ross Boyd writes:
> Can you very briefly tell us what you *are*
> adding/changing in version 2.3?
Well, briefly:
- source code availability. This requires a fair bit of work on my part
to make the code ready, especially for non-WATCOM compilers.
- namespace enhancement
- 2-pass binder removes all unused routines, vars, constants
and provides various improvements
- trace(3) logs statements to a file
- several small bug fixes
- dozens of small but very useful improvements.
If I take time to type them all in, I'll have to drop one.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
6. Re: Confirmation for 2.3
- Posted by rossboyd at ihug.com.au
Aug 16, 2001
> > Can you very briefly tell us what you *are*
> > adding/changing in version 2.3?
>
> Well, briefly:
>
> - source code availability. This requires a fair bit of work on my
part
> to make the code ready, especially for non-WATCOM compilers.
> - namespace enhancement
> - 2-pass binder removes all unused routines, vars, constants
> and provides various improvements
> - trace(3) logs statements to a file
> - several small bug fixes
> - dozens of small but very useful improvements.
> If I take time to type them all in, I'll have to drop one.
I was hoping for the unused routine,var,constant remover. Excellent!
Source code availability - now that's exciting!
I assume you'll keep your 'blood sweat and tears' proprietary code in
.obj/.lib form
while allowing users to extend the language syntax and functions.
Thankyou Robert for the info. Much appreciated!
Ross Boyd
7. Re: Confirmation for 2.3
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Aug 16, 2001
You might do a search on the RDS site
for such things.
Robert has talked about this atleast 10 times.
BTW, your assumption is mostly correct.
Euman
euman at bellsouth.net
>
> > > Can you very briefly tell us what you *are*
> > > adding/changing in version 2.3?
> >
> > Well, briefly:
> >
> > - source code availability. This requires a fair bit of work on my
> part
> > to make the code ready, especially for non-WATCOM compilers.
> > - namespace enhancement
> > - 2-pass binder removes all unused routines, vars, constants
> > and provides various improvements
> > - trace(3) logs statements to a file
> > - several small bug fixes
> > - dozens of small but very useful improvements.
> > If I take time to type them all in, I'll have to drop one.
>
>
> I was hoping for the unused routine,var,constant remover. Excellent!
>
> Source code availability - now that's exciting!
> I assume you'll keep your 'blood sweat and tears' proprietary code in
> .obj/.lib form
> while allowing users to extend the language syntax and functions.
>
> Thankyou Robert for the info. Much appreciated!
>
> Ross Boyd
8. Re: Confirmation for 2.3
Bernie Ryan writes:
> I hope this only means local unused routines, vars, constants,
> and not globals that are used in libraries.
It will remove anything that's safe to remove.
Most people are binding or shrouding complete programs.
In that case it will remove any unused global or local symbols.
routine_id("abc") will require that abc() be retained.
routine_id(expression) will require that all previously defined,
currently visible routines be retained.
A few people, such as yourself, are shrouding libraries.
I won't remove any globals from the main library file,
and maybe there will be an option to protect all globals.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
9. Re: Confirmation for 2.3
- Posted by rossboyd at ihug.com.au
Aug 16, 2001
Thankyou for your suggestion.
I'll know where to go in future.
> You might do a search on the RDS site
> for such things.
>
> Robert has talked about this atleast 10 times.
>
> BTW, your assumption is mostly correct.
>
> Euman
> euman at bellsouth.net
>
>
> >
> > > > Can you very briefly tell us what you *are*
> > > > adding/changing in version 2.3?
> > >
> > > Well, briefly:
> > >
> > > - source code availability. This requires a fair bit of work
on my
> > part
> > > to make the code ready, especially for non-WATCOM compilers.
> > > - namespace enhancement
> > > - 2-pass binder removes all unused routines, vars, constants
> > > and provides various improvements
> > > - trace(3) logs statements to a file
> > > - several small bug fixes
> > > - dozens of small but very useful improvements.
> > > If I take time to type them all in, I'll have to drop one.
> >
> >
> > I was hoping for the unused routine,var,constant remover. Excellent!
> >
> > Source code availability - now that's exciting!
> > I assume you'll keep your 'blood sweat and tears' proprietary code
in
> > .obj/.lib form
> > while allowing users to extend the language syntax and functions.
> >
> > Thankyou Robert for the info. Much appreciated!
> >
> > Ross Boyd
>
>
>
>
>
>
10. Re: Confirmation for 2.3
Euman writes:
> You might do a search on the RDS site
> for such things.
>
> Robert has talked about this atleast 10 times.
In an ideal world, there would be an up-to-date list
of all known bugs, and another list of all features
that are planned for the next release.
Besides laziness, there are a couple of reasons
why I don't publish these lists.
1. A list of every bug that I'm aware of would include
lots of very minor, very rare bugs that few people
will ever encounter. I'd have to write a description
of each bug in a form that people can clearly understand it.
My descriptions currently are in a terse, cryptic form,
including references to internal data structures etc.
Any major bugs are almost certain to be fixed in the next release.
2. A bug list should be on the Web site, but I think
that people visiting the site for the first time would
see the long list of (minor) bugs, think the product
was very buggy, and leave.
3. I talk about the major features that I'm planning, but
I shy away from listing lots of minor features. I have
a huge list of small things I'd like to do, but I usually
commit to something only when I've finished the previous
task. Once I talk about doing something I feel committed
to do it, even if I find something else that's a lot more useful.
4. Did I mention laziness?
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
11. Re: Confirmation for 2.3
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Aug 16, 2001
Well, I must be like you, I said I would post updates
to my Dos-Windowing program but havent in almost a year.
I hope to one day and now that I know alittle more, when I ever do
get back to it, it will certainly be more powerfull and faster.
Not rushing, normally makes things much better.... 
a list of bugs may help some of the people that
have been around a while avoid possible problems that may arise
in they're programs. Some of us are actually trying to write major
app's here Rob. On the other hand, After 4 1/2 years the pitfalls
for me have narrowed somewhat so maybe the list might help the
new people get a good head start as well.......
When I made the statement that I only know of a one or two bugs
that wasnt entirely true. I said this because I think I may be the only one
doing odd shaped windows and manipulating the Windows in Win.
I know of two bugs right there....they are minor because with a little math
I get around this. (btw, these relate to the interpreter -ver- translated code.)
If you think people will be put off by bugs in Euphoria, then you might be
right.
Those people who are put off by this should be intelligent enough to realise
that you are
atleast honest about Euphoria bugs and that something is being done about them.
That very honesty would have sold me on Euphoria regardless of the list..
Euman
euman at bellsouth.net
> Euman writes:
> > You might do a search on the RDS site
> > for such things.
> >
> > Robert has talked about this atleast 10 times.
>
> In an ideal world, there would be an up-to-date list
> of all known bugs, and another list of all features
> that are planned for the next release.
>
> Besides laziness, there are a couple of reasons
> why I don't publish these lists.
>
> 1. A list of every bug that I'm aware of would include
> lots of very minor, very rare bugs that few people
> will ever encounter. I'd have to write a description
> of each bug in a form that people can clearly understand it.
> My descriptions currently are in a terse, cryptic form,
> including references to internal data structures etc.
> Any major bugs are almost certain to be fixed in the next release.
>
> 2. A bug list should be on the Web site, but I think
> that people visiting the site for the first time would
> see the long list of (minor) bugs, think the product
> was very buggy, and leave.
>
> 3. I talk about the major features that I'm planning, but
> I shy away from listing lots of minor features. I have
> a huge list of small things I'd like to do, but I usually
> commit to something only when I've finished the previous
> task. Once I talk about doing something I feel committed
> to do it, even if I find something else that's a lot more useful.
>
> 4. Did I mention laziness?
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
>
>
>
>
>
