OpenEuphoria

Re: get() and value()

• Posted by don cole <doncole at pac?ell.?et> Aug 25, 2007
• 567 views

Robert Craig wrote:
> 
> 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</font></i>
> > > > 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
>    <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
 
 Hello,
 Originally the question was: Do you agree with the changes in get() 
and value()? In the thread "get() and value()".

This thread has broken down into 6 sub threads;

[POLL] Sequence of types

Voting

Discusion concerning [POLL] Sequence of types

Proposal for 'math.e'(2007-08-23)

Frozen language versions

Process

Whew!!!, I's no wonder nothing gets done around here.

Don Cole