OpenEuphoria

Re: Proposal for a (small) enhancement to the value() function.

• Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> Jun 27, 2007
• 867 views

CChris wrote:
> Could you explain, however, why this alternative scheme is preferable?
I have now totally changed my mind and gone off on a complete tangent: optional
parameters.

If Eu had optional parameters, then:

integer errcode, chars_read, lead_space
procedure value_info(sequence info)
   errcode = info[1]
   chars_read = info[2]
   lead_space = info[3]
   if errcode!=GET_SUCCESS then
      -- handle errors centrally...
   end if
end procedure
constant r_ve=routine_id("value_info")

object r
   r=value("0",r_ve)
   if errcode!=GET_SUCCESS then
       -- ... or one at a time

If you call value() with one parameter it behaves as now, for legacy code.
If you call value() with two parameters, the result is a single value like most
people expect.
Note that in this scheme, value_info() is always called, GET_SUCCESS or not.

Since optional parameters are a way off, I now change my vote to adding a
valueEx() routine which works as above.

Regards,
Pete