OpenEuphoria

Re: Reply to LONG ago post.

• Posted by Daniel Berstein <daber at PAIR.COM> Mar 13, 1999
• 606 views

At 11:29 PM 12-03-1999 , you wrote:
>Here's a bit of info on something someone(sorry, cant remember the name
>:) ) said about making Euphoria more like this:
>
>puts 1,"Text" position 4,5
>
>Someone said it's impossable without making a end of line command. What
>about atoms?? We dont type: "atom(something)" or "atom something ;" ! We
>type: "atom something" ! Why cant RDS make Euphoria just check when all
>the stuff procedures need then wait for another command. Example:
>
>-- Check Here \/
>         position 5,4
>-- Found all the stuff it needs so looking for the next command
>
>It wont be much slower.
>
>Neil Harvey

I don't say it IMPOSSIBLE to do (in fact because there is no end of
statement delimiter, it DO work as you say), but that it may lead to
frequent errors on your code because Euphoria won't be able to detect when
you forgot/ommit a parameter.

Here's my original reply to Derek's new syntax proposal:

[snip start]
Completely unuseful Derek. Because Euphoria doesn't have an
end_of_statement delimiter (like C and Pascal ';'), the parenthesis are
required so the interpreter doesn't confuse missing parameters from other
statements. Example:
procedure myproc(integer i, integer ii)
...
end procedure
myproc 10 i = gets 0
Should mean:
myproc(10, i = gets(0))
But also might mean that you forgot a parameter and wanted to code:
myproc(10, ?)
i = gets(0)
Very different!
That would be a hard to catch bug with your proposed syntax; a very error
prone syntax indeed.
[snip end]


Regards,
         Daniel  Berstein
         [daber at pair.com]