RE: Euphoria 2.5
Hi, Igor.
What are the non-documented side efects you are speaking of?
Regards.
----- Original Message -----
From: Igor Kachan <kinz at peterlink.ru>
To: <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 4:32 AM
Subject: Re: Euphoria 2.5
>
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
> ----------
> > From: Juergen Luethje <j.lue at gmx.de>
> > To: EUforum at topica.com
> > Subject: Re: Euphoria 2.5
> > Sent: 29 jul 2004 y. 22:57
>
> [big snip]
>
> > Sorry, but this sounds somewhat theoretical to me.
> > At least regarding to my personal coding style,
> > this will be rather unlikely. If a sequence in
> > my program is so important, that I feel necessary
> > to give it a name such as
> > 'First_Very_Long_But_Very_Clear_Name_of_Main_Sequence_1',
> > then I probably will name the variable that holds its length
> > 'Length_Of_First_Very_Long_But_Very_Clear_Name_of_Main_Sequence_1'
> > rather than just 'A_'.
> > Or, the other way round, if the variable 'A_' holds the
> > length of the sequence, then the sequence itself will
> > prbably have a name such as 'A' or 'sA'.
>
> Yes, agreed.
>
> > Anyway, I think your trick can be useful when there are
> > only a few sequences in the program, that often change
> > their lengths, and the lenths are often needed by the
> > program. So it's not necessary always to write
> > A_=length(First_Very_Long_But_Very_Clear_Name_of_Main_Sequence_1)
>
> Thanks.
>
> > But if there are say 20 sequences, I think adding
> > 20 types would add considerable overhad to the program.
>
> Maybe.
> I can not say something definite about $-overhead of the
> Euphoria interpreters and translators themselves, about
> the time and efforts on developing that feature etc etc,
> and, maybe, I'm too conservative myself to be euthoric
> about any new thing in the EU language.
> I think, we all do not know the existing EU well enough.
>
> > > But you could not use $-feature in the same manner,
> > > there is no the separate $-value at all.
> >
> > Yes, it will only work for subscripting and slicing,
> > but for these purposes it will be more elegant than
> > anything currently available in Eu 2.4, IMHO.
>
> Maybe, yes, elegance requires a sacrifice ...
>
> But old good EU [type ... end type], what a beautiful thing!
>
> I just remembered yours:
> "And what is the advantage compared to conventional Euphoria
> programming style, i.e. not using all those types ... "
>
> And I do remember Rob's:
> "In Euphoria, types are for documentation
> and debugging. Period."
>
> And I am afraid that some time Rob will eliminate
> the existing non-documented side effect as it already
> was once with the translator in "without type_check" mode.
>
> Well, let us wait for 2.5.
>
> Good Luck!
>
> Regards,
> Igor Kachan
> kinz at peterlink.ru
>
>
>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
