Re: Discussion concerning [POLL] Sequences of types
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> To all people who voted 3. UNRESTRICTED:
>
> Are you aware that this is a good source for causing nightmares
> (as has been discussed previously)?
>
That's OK. I predict that this proposal passes overwhelmingly, but never
gets implemented. Rob has discussed this several times, but I doubt many
people realize (because they've never really worked with the source code)
how large a change it is to add some new data type.
I could be wrong, of course. But really, I don't see what this proposal
really adds to the language. The only advantage that I can see is that
some of the type checking for certain UDTs can be done by the back end.
Of course, if it gets as ingrained as checking for sequence/atom/integer,
then it's going to really slow things down, since those checks happen
regardless of whether type checking is turned on. And that usually only
happens during debugging, not for production, so speed isn't nearly so
critical.
I think that this is really a false start at some sort of structured
data type for euphoria, which would have benefits, because you'd have
more ability to do type checks on individual pieces of data and structured
access to data members that wouldn't pollute the namespace. That's
the sort of thing that would be really useful.
Matt
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
