Re: direction
Rob... Thanks for commenting on this subject. I'm not sure if it will
satisfy the interested parties, but at least they'll know where you stand.
Lee.
Robert Craig wrote:
>This is exactly the type of question that I try to avoid.
>
>There are two types of structures that people want.
>The first is a Euphoria structure that holds Euphoria
>data types. The second is a C structure that holds C
>data types. The C structure would be aligned in memory
>exactly as C requires.
>
>The problem with the first is that it takes a language
>that's elegantly based on two data types: atom and sequence,
>and it jams in a third. The problem with the second is
>that it forces Euphoria to suck in a lot of knowledge
>of C, and possibly even a particular C compiler, since
>there is no universal standard for alignment of C structures.
>My intention was that certain people would interface with C
>using peeks and pokes and the rest of us would simply
>call Euphoria "wrapper" routines and not have to worry about it.
>To a large extent that is what is actually happening.
>
>You could also achieve structures by creating classes with
>data members, but object-oriented features would be another
>big blast of added complexity that I'm not ready to accept yet.
>
>I've never been satisfied with any proposals
>for either of these structures, but if someone comes up with
>a *concrete* proposal that I like, I'll implement it.
>Until then, I probably won't comment any further on it.
>
>Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
