Re: Proposal for a (small) enhancement to the value() function.
- Posted by CChris <christian.cuvier at agriculture.gouv.fr> Jun 27, 2007
- 713 views
Pete Lomax wrote: > > 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: > }}} <eucode> > 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 > </eucode> {{{ > 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 Certainly defaulted parameters are a welcome addition. I could recycle code from idEu easily I think in order to achieve this result. They would enable to fold find_from() and more extensions into find() as well. But for now... Of course I can introduce valueEx() to get the 4 element sequence. Derek, will you comit your own code, or do you prefer my doing so with appropriate credits? CChris