1. Re: :: versus . (was What's holding Euphoria back?)
Don Groves wrote:
> If we get to vote on syntax, I prefer <module_name>.<variable_name>
> to <module_name>::<variable_name>. The :: is just too C++ish for
> me 
Of course, <variable_name> alone always refers to the current
> module.
Not only C++ish. Typing the dot takes only one hit of one key.
Typing :: takes:
1. Pressing the shift key and holding it down.
2. Hitting the semicolon key
3. Hitting the semicolon key again
4. Releasing the shift key
Further, as I just argued in a long post, there are no
really fundamental differences between structures (or records)
and objects (or classes), and modules (a.k.a. units in Turbo
and Borland Pascal). A module (a unit) is equivalent to a
class that "lives" in its own file.
Further, a record of the type I have described in "Euphoria with
records" can very well be a sequence of nothing but
routine id's (a.k.a. "methods"). There are thus no functional
differences between record, object, unit (module, or Euphoria
"include" files)
So there are no rational grounds for introducing a distinct
operator from the dot used in C structures.
