1. Re: Implementing structures
At 01:06 PM 4/24/98 -0500, Kasey wrote:
<snip>
>In fact most of the changes people want could probably be done >with a
preprocessor,
>which if customizeable, could let them EACH have thier own >personal
flavor of Euphoria
>without RDS having to add a thousand bells and whistles, most of >for one DON'T
>want, and thats why I'm using euporia instead of visual c++ turbo
FORTH works that way. Not very many people use FORTH.
(On the other hand, what's the most used language?)
(Hint: it starts with 'C', and has a thousand bells and whistles)
>The only "change" I'm remotely interested in at this point is
> the ability to fully compile.
>Anything else I want I'll find a way to do with Euporia as it is.
I don't think a compiler is in the works. People aren't desperate
for a compiler,(like they are with other languages) since Euphoria runs
pretty fast as is.
>... rather than ask for changes to the language I wrote to short
>little recursive routines to pre-define the sequence structure >however I
needed (it was a LOT simpler than I thought!)
Fair enough. How about adding type checking to the
various elements of a sequence?
>And I didn't have to bug RDS for fetures or wait for them to >implemented
before I could finish my program (I have to wait on my own lazyness however:( )
Waiting for RDS to implement features? No, anything
I write for money is written in Delphi, Pascal or C (at gunpoint) among
others. Euphoria is strictly for tinkering at this point.
It may make it onto the 'useful' list some day.
(No offense intended, RDS -- some of my clients insist I
write code maintainable by others -- in case I keel over
dead or something)
Irv
Spam Haiku:-------------------
Silent, former pig
One communal awareness
Myriad pink bricks
-------------------------------------
