Re: named array
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Sep 06, 2013
- 1714 views
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
For a preprocessor itself written in Eu, probably an hour of coding and testing...
(I should point out that this appears to be different from the Ruby-Symbols equiv preprocessor that you previously proposed in this thread. You're moving the goalposts.)
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.
Agreed - as I've explained before, what you've written doesn't seem to be a significant improvement on what Euphoria already has.
