OpenEuphoria

Re: Source changes

• Posted by CChris <christian.cuvier at ?griculture.gouv.fr> Jul 02, 2007
• 649 views

Robert Craig wrote:
> 
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
> > 
> > CChris wrote:
> > 
> > > A few hours ago, I checked in the changes related to value() and get(), so
> > > that
> > > they both return 4 element sequences. I didn't test the generated docs.
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > Rob,
> > 
> > please do not put these changes into the next Euphoria release.
> 
> I can understand your concerns about keeping things
> simple, but I'm not going to veto this change. I doubt that
> it will cause much, if any, code to break. Christian should listen
> carefully to the arguments of others on this forum, but if he 
> still thinks it's a good idea, then it's OK with me if he proceeds.
> People who take the time to learn SVN, and who do the actual 
> programming work, should be given the benefit of the doubt
> on small changes like this. Besides, in the future, if there are 
> any bugs in get() or value(), we'll have someone to turn to, 
> other than me.  
> 
> Regards,
>    Rob Craig
>    Rapid Deployment Software
>    <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>

Further, as I have listened carefully, I heard that:
1/ some people, perhaps many of them, are looking for a function that converts a
string into a numerical value and hardly anything else. Derek Parnell hinted that
he would submit a tidied up version of w32to_number().
2/ If I understand well what has been said, many people will switch to that
function and leave value() alone anyway. This will certainly decrease the amount
of possible groaning, as w32to_number(), or whatever it will be eventually named,
will be "simpler" (= return less data? not sure, but oh well).
3/ Obviously I'm here to fix the bugs that I'd have introduced.

CChris