Re: Evolution of Euphoria
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 12, 2015
- 1205 views
I have got the impression more than once that the other devs were trying to make EUPHORIA into Perl with a syntax more like Pascal.
Is that really such a bad thing?
and now subscript opts. All changed.
I don't recall anyone changing subscript opts. What change where and when?
and bit-wise operations,
I particularly liked your version of this - where every bit could be accessed as if it were an element of a sequence, and the number of bits was not limited to the maximum size of the largest native integral value of the processor. A shame that no one has implemented this yet (even as a library that I could wrap in the parser or a preprocessor).
The admins of any project determine which feature is a better approximation of the ideal and which are "corruption".
Well, its the devs (of which you are a member) who decide this, not the admins (who you are also a member). We have many non-admin devs, and at least one non-dev admin.
For example, one might say that or_bits should return positive integers because such is more intuitive. This interprets the bits as an unsigned integer. Others might say, because or_bits is a low level routine it should simply be as efficient as possible and return the bits as a signed integer.
As a practical matter maybe it's not so important - if you really need to you can use poke4() and peek4s() to convert an unsigned value to a signed value, and poke4() and peek4u() to convert a signed value to an unsigned value.
