1. Re: rigid data structures
Ok Rob, we know you love Euphoria more than any other, just like a father
with his son ...
But, just for the list readers, can you anticipate us what new features are
you thinking to add to your wonderful creation ?
Ciao and keep going this way...
Maurizio
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Craig [SMTP:rds at EMAIL.MSN.COM]
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 1998 3:10 AM
> To: EUPHORIA at cwisserver1.mcs.muohio.edu
> Subject: Re: rigid data structures
>
> 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/
