Re: SWITCH question

new topic     » goto parent     » topic index » view thread      » older message » newer message

Hi jd,

After a good night's rest and some paracetamolum-ish thingy (ending an excruciating migraine)
I did realize I had been too sleepy the moment I answered your question and I'd better have waited
until the clouds were gone and I could clearly see the way again.
There is absolutely NO flaw in switch - - - case(s) - - - default - - - endswitch.

The flaw is a logical one in the way you treat switch, because you don't use the METHOD of switch correctly.

Explaining its method is simple:

Switch emulates a specific type of conditional for next loop
for a={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,x}, /* do something */ step +=1 next a end for a

It does in case of a=1 the action pertaining to a[1] etc but it is recursive so if a[1] would be {x1,y1,z1} it will perform x,y,z in that order.
before stepping up to [a2], and finishing AFTER {a[x][y]} finished, leaving
a condition If none of the specified conditions is met, it CAN perform a DEFAULT action

So in fact with creating sequences and manipulating them the way you like
he created a sequential for, if, while etc possibility.
The potential of it is unbelievable. It offers you the option of writing very complex
logical structures in an absolutely logical way, hell NO it creates the option of
writing impossible functions in a dedicated system, by simply telling itself
ON YOUR COMMAND to change eg it's number-base and implicitly its NEW method.

EG: 2/3 in binary you cannot solve, and it will introduce growing inaccuracies,
Well, tell EU to switch to Ternary and it will be able to solve at least half o
the 2 vs three questions, without ANY LOSS of precision.

The only inaccuracy will be in translating the 3-base number back into a binary value.

Check carefully what you ASK switch to do and the anomalies will disappear, NOT
giving it nonsensical commands within its method, solves all of them.

SWITCH is AUDAIS (Almost Unlimited Descriptive Artificial Intelligent System) IF
you have the capacity of perfect structuring, it will be the only existing tool (programming language-wise)
in the whole world. That is the power ONLY old Euph already had, and believe me:

I doubt whether Rob and Junko themselves saw this perspective.

And THAT POWER is a feature ONLY OE and EU (+phix) have that NO OTHER PL has.

new topic     » goto parent     » topic index » view thread      » older message » newer message


Quick Links

User menu

Not signed in.

Misc Menu