OpenEuphoria

Re: get() and value()

• Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphor??.com> Aug 24, 2007
• 549 views

Juergen Luethje wrote:
> 
> Robert Craig wrote:
> 
> > CChris wrote:
> > > Since no one has made any comment on this for the last 8 days or perhaps
> > > more,
> > > I'm going to proceed...
> > > 
> > > * get() and value() will keep returning a 2 element sequence.
> > 
> > I don't think anyone will disagree with that.
> > 
> > > * get() and value() accept embedded comments in sequence - they crash in
> > > official
> > > Eu, which some don't see as a bug;
> > > * get() and value() ignore leading top level comments. Commments start by
> > > "--"
> > > and end a a \n or \r character, or at end of input;
> > 
> > I don't think anyone will mind if comments in the input data
> > are accepted, and ignored.
> > I've actually had occasions where I would have liked to 
> > add comments to my input data.
> > 
> > > * a new value_from(sequence s,integer starting_point) will allow to scan a
> > > sequence
> > > from a starting point between 1 and length(s). This function returns a 4
> > > element
> > > sequence: first two as value(), total character read, leading whitespace.
> > 
> > Sounds useful.
> > 
> > > * There's no symmetric get_from(), as it would reduce to a possibly
> > > inefficient
> > > sequence of seek() and get(), unless there's some demand for it.
> > 
> > OK.
> >  
> > > Additionally, the possibility exists for all of the above to return a new
> > > error
> > > code when no value is read and end of input is reached, as opposed to
> > > having
> > > read an unfinished value string. Currently, GET_EOF is returned in both
> > > case.
> > > Adding the extra error code would remove 4-5 lines of code from get.e. Is
> > > this
> > > to be considered?
> > 
> > Sounds OK.
> >  
> > > I'll update the whole thing tonight (4pm now).
> > 
> > Go ahead with all of this, 
> > unless someone seriously disagrees very soon.
> 
> I generally disagree with "playing with the interpreter" unless there
> is actually a good reason for doing so (and provided that the person who
> makes the changes has complete overview about what s/he is doing!).
> A good reason would be e.g. when a majority of EUforum users would
> appreciating the proposed changes. I haven't read something like that
> concerning this proposal.

He isn't playing with the interpreter,
just the get.e include file.
get() and value() are implemented in get.e in 100% Euphoria code.

However, if you want, we can have an official vote 
on the above changes. Yes or No on the whole set above.

Regards,
   Rob Craig
   Rapid Deployment Software
   http://www.RapidEuphoria.com