1. Re: Forward Definitions
Gabriel Boehme wrote against forward definitions:
> So, if we're going to do away with declare-before-use, we've got to
> do away with built-in redefinitions.
If this is your *real* complaint, why attack Jiri and set up straw-men
arguments against forward declarations?
Personally, I'm not fond of the idea that built-ins can be redefined
(overloaded). It flys in the face of simplicity, consistancy and
expectation:
1. Only built-ins can be redefined.
2. A built-in can only be redefined once.
3. Built-ins don't return valid routine id's.
4. Redefined built-ins return valid routine id's.
4. Built-in functions should remain constant in function.
Consider the following example:
include magic_1.e
include magic_2.e
if routine_id("puts") = -1 then
puts(1,"not redefined")
else
puts(1,"redefined")
end if
It's impossible to determine what the code will do, despite it using only
"built in" functions. Will it:
- print "not redefined"?
- print "redefined"?
- abort because of an error?
- abort because both include files tried to redefine 'puts'?
- abort because I didn't bother to test it? 
I'd much rather change the behavior to:
1. Disallow routines in the same scope to be redefined.
2. Have built-ins return valid routine id's.
and, of course, my constant complaints:
3. Change the scope of routine_id to the run time scope, not compile time.
4. Have routine_id return a 0 on failure, not -1.
-- David Cuny
