OpenEuphoria

Re: Eu improvements (part 4)

• Posted by Karl Bochert <kbochert at copper.net> Jan 05, 2007
• 678 views

Matt Lewis wrote:
> 
> Karl Bochert wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I understand that an OOp system can declare member variables.
> > But again, I am not proposing OOP  I am proposing SS and PBR.
> > 
> > If people want OOP then new features such as PBR and SS are not
> > necessary - they just start their program with
> > }}}
<eucode>
> >    include "ooeu.e"  -- (or whatever your library is named)
> > </eucode>
{{{

> 
> I know what you're saying.  As Jason pointed out, ooeu isn't a 
> library (although you can embed it in your program as a scripting 
> engine that way).
> 
> The main point of ooeu is to have a place to really try out some of the
> ideas that get thrown around here over the years.
>  However, the way I've
> implemented OOP is very similar to your concept of SS, and gives people
> a way to play with this sort of thing in a working interpreter (I've 
> gotten the translator to work with many ooeu features, too, BTW).
> 
> Matt
So basically OOEU fulfills your needs and you are uninterested in adding
SS or PBR to the language.

-- rant --
I was hoping that the introduction of open Eu might have allowed
some advances  to what is (lets face it) a toy language.
I make a suggestion for what I think is a powerful and simple feature (SS).
The only response is "You can do some of that with OOEU" - "XYZ's
package does some of that this way" etc. etc. I am starting to
understand that the translation of these responses is "Not Interested, but
heres something else to talk about".
OK, I'll stop.

The other thing I notice is that RC is totally silent. Is he waiting for
unanimity? Will he bless any change at all? Without his input, none of
this means anything at all.
I seem to have forgotten this in my years away from Eu.

- end of rant -
KtB