Re: Secret new routine_id() feature. (Attn: Rob)
Vincent wrote:
>
> CoJaBo wrote:
> >
> > Patrick Barnes wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 19:00:54 -0800, Robert Craig
> > > <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
> > > > Thanks for reporting this bug.
> > > > It will be fixed in the beta release.
> > > > It looks like only the interpreters (PD and RDS) have the bug.
> > > > Translated code, bound code, and shrouded code seem to work correctly.
> > > > Even in 2.4 and earlier, many programs were parsed completely,
> > > > or almost completely, before routine_id() was executed.
> > > > I think it's better from a language design point of view that
> > > > routine_id() looks only at earlier routines, not later.
> > > > My reasons are:
> > > > 1. I like to torture people.
> > > > 2. Check the EUforum archive for the other reasons.
> > >
> > > Hah!
> > > People can and will write hard-to-read code Rob, there's nothing you
> > The code I've had to write to work around this problem
> > is far worse then routines out of order!
> > At least allow routine_id() to fing routines defined
> > later!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> >
> > > or anyone can do to stop them. The 'elegance' you think comes from
> > > arranging functions in order is nothing compared to a program that
> > > doesn't need to resort to hacks in order to function, or even a
> > > program that has its functions arranged in LOGICAL order, rather than
> > > chronological.
> > >
> > > Restricting forward-reference is seen as a limitation. It's ALWAYS
> > > seen as a limitation. If a user runs into the 'no forward-reference'
> > > problem, they don't go "gee, RDS is looking out for me best
> > > interests", do they? NO! They say "Damn, why doesn't this stupid
> > > language let me define my functions where I like?! What is it, C circa
> > > 1982?!"
> > >
> > > Stop pretending you're the arbiter of good coding style, and you'll
> > > improve the Euphoria language by it. Those who have a need to get
> > > around the forward-reference problem you've *imposed* on the language
> > > will thank you.
> > >
> > > --
> > > MrTrick
> > >
> > >
> I guess I will agree with everyone else in that routine_id() should be
> able to return a unique integer id number at any section of code, instead
> of just after defining the functions/procedures. I see nothing wrong
> with being able to take advantage of fully parsed code at startup in this
> case. and as it seems.. keeping this feature 'bug' would be in almost
> everyones interest, I prosume?
Just look at my poll:
Poll Question: Should routine_id() find find routines defined later?:
http://uboard.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1102561416
Robe
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
