1. Re: rigid data structures
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at EMAIL.MSN.COM>
Aug 20, 1998
-
Last edited Aug 21, 1998
Daniel Johnson writes:
> PS Rob what is your position on rigid data structures
> in Euphoria ?
I assume you mean sequences of fixed-length and with
elements of fixed types? Do you mean "arrays"?
or (more likely) "structures"?
I've already stated my position on "structures"
several times on this list. They certainly have value,
but I'm currently not convinced that they justify adding
a whole new concept to the language. You can emulate them
with the current language, although it does leave
something to be desired.
I'd rather keep Euphoria simple, than evolve it
into something indistinguishable from C++.
> Many times on this list people explain how
> they would like to have something similar to this, and
> the thread disappears untouched.
Most people probably aren't interested in adding "structures".
Some people "know" that structures are good, and
"must be added" but they've already heard my stubborn refusals,
so they don't persue it.
I'm always interested in *reading* proposals for new features.
However, I find it very time-consuming to have to construct
a detailed, logical reply to someone's proposal. In most cases things
are very subjective. There's no way that I can "prove" that
your proposed feature is "bad".
I don't think I'm biased against structures. I use them all the
time in C programming and they are great for C. But Euphoria
is not C.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://members.aol.com/FilesEu/
