Re: Ideas
- Posted by Falkon <Falkn13 at IBM.NET> Jun 29, 1998
- 462 views
From: Andy Kurnia > That's something "simple", i.e. something I would want to make. > Details please? Well, working out the details is what would make it a project for you. <g> You could handle byte-sized variables either through allocate or just by storing 4 of them in an atom and manipulating the appropriate 8 bits as needed. So that if you read in a 100k binary file to a sequence, it'd take 102400 bytes of memory instead of 409600. But either way, you'd need to keep track of the position of the bytes.. Doing it simply, so that the programmer doesn't have to jump through too many hoops to use it, and with the least amount of overhead is the challenge. The programmer should only need to know the offset, like I want to set bytes 35..40 of the file to "ABCDEF", or set a = byte 675, without worrying about the positions within the atoms of the sequence or offsets of an allocated space. As far as the structures part, the closest thing I've seen is Ralf's OOP implementation. But instead of classes/objects we'd be making typed and untyped structures of data. Like say I want a sequence that'll hold file info, structured like Name as string, Extension as string, Size, Date, and Time as atoms, Attributes as sequence of characters. But I don't want the types totally hard-coded because there'll be differences. On a DOS-only system prior to 6.22, I want to limit the size of the Name and Extension to 8 and 3, but on a DOS or Windows version with lfn support, I want to make use of it in the file info block. Further I may want to be able to make sequences of those fileinfoblocks, and structures containing say, a fileinfoblock and other assorted data of different types and structures, some of which may not be typechecked, but keeping the typechecking on the elements of the fileinfoblock. I could do that easy enough. But making it generic, so that it works with whatever structure, and you don't have to code separate, long, intricate, type-checking routines for each structure and combination of structures you want is the challenge. Run-time typing of user-defined complex, compound, and compound complex structures. Heh. In case you're wondering, I'd like to see a database wherein the user would have full control not only of the number and types of fields in a record, and whether those fields where type-checked, but the organizational structure of the records as well. Combining the functionality of a relational database with a tree-structure and/or chart organizer, and improving a bit. I think Euphoria's flexibility makes it about the perfect language to do it in.