Re: About graphics.e in Proposal for 'math.e' (2007-08-23)
CChris wrote:
>
> Derek Parnell wrote:
> >
> > Jules wrote:
> > >
> > > Derek Parnell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jules wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Routines for sets should be in a separate include file, not in
> > > > > > "math.e".
[snip]
> Could you consider that the word "commonly" means sometimes opposed things for
> different people?
>
> I suggest spinning the DOS graphic functions off to a separate include file,
> which does not need to be standard. They are specialised - much more than set
> operations -, and in 6 or 7 years I never used any of them a single time. This
> will make Euphoria simpler.
Really Euphoria is simple and popular a lot thanks to its great
simple DOS32 graphics.
Your suggestion automatically means that you want the DOS32
distribution only separate, or hundreds of Archive packages
will not work with the standard Windows+DOS package
(they do not contain the standard libs).
Please be careful, CChris.
I think that Windows, Linux and FreeBSD versions of Euphoria
are too complicated due to lack of that simple DOS graphics.
There is no possibility even compare importance for
the common Euphoria sets.e and graphics.e.
Zero against the whole history and good half of The Archive.
Regards,
Igor Kachan
kinz at peterlink.ru
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
