1. OO Survey->structures
- Posted by Jerry Story <jstory at edmc.net> May 14, 2003
- 412 views
mistertrik at hotmail.com wrote: > What I think Euphoria should have: > structures! > > This allows for "pseudo" object orientedness. If you want to have some > data > in easily recogniseable chunks, an array of structures is the way to go. > > It's easily recognisable as a discrete entity, and could run much faster > > than complicated multidimensional arrays with constants declared to > point to > certain objects in the array (What I have to do now :o(. ) With this > last > basic data type, it would be complete euphoria's wonderful data system. > > I know that the freedom to dynamically mess with sequences in euphoria > is > wonderful, but the flip side to that is the introduction of odd bugs > that > came about because of a pair of oddly placed curlies (or lack thereof) > in > the depths of an algorithm. I think that for people who WANT their data > to > stay in fixed order - especially for the situations where you end up > trying > to maintain it just as much as you are debugging the rest of your code > -, > structures should be allowed. > > As far as I see it, you could even have the best of both worlds. Have > your > dynamic sequences, with the ability to put anything anywhere, but also > have > the ability to assign a structure to a member of that sequence. This > would > in my mind make it far easier to implement a more object-friendly > environment, and simplify managing data that belongs in discrete groups. > > This of course, is just my opinion. I would love to hear debate from the > > community about what their thoughts on this issue are, and how it > could/should/would be implemented. > > Alright, I've finished my rant. Here is Rob Craig explaining about structures: http://www.topica.com/lists/EUforum/read/message.html?mid=1707843577 Jerry Story