Re: named array
- Posted by TheresNoTime Sep 06, 2013
- 1775 views
In other languages (Ruby and Python) I will have to decide what is more important. In the Euphoria I have no choice because there is no security, no convenience (in my understanding of these terms).
Convenience == syntax sugar? Since Euphoria has builtin support for preprocessors, I'll cheat here and say that this provides all the necessary syntax sugar.
This information is extremely inspiring. Could you tell us how difficult it is to make sure that the following lines...
sequence x = {key1:value1 key2:value2} sequence y = {key1:value3 key3:value4} -- ...are automatically transformed into... sequence x = repeat(0, 3) x[1] = value1 x[2] = value2 sequence y = repeat(0, 3) y[1] = value3 y[3] = value4
I'm still puzzled by your statement that Euphoria lacks both choices, however. You've written a library that provides for your needs (security included), and have come up with a preprocessor design that provides you with the desired convenience. Thus it seems like you have the best of both worlds now, in Euphoria, through your own efforts.
I meant that those languages have such things right now. Obviously, any powerful language have self-improvement ability. Euphoria can be improved, but Ruby do not to improve, because it already has the symbols.
BTW, So far we have discussed these improvements, I wrote the program. Not all, but enough to not need such flexible instruments. It was necessary to me early on, because I did not know what parameters need to be stored, and which functions will modify the input data. But it could be done faster and easier.
