Re: Eu improvements (part 4)
Karl Bochert wrote:
> Matt Lewis wrote:
> > However, the way I've
> > implemented OOP is very similar to your concept of SS
> So basically OOEU fulfills your needs and you are uninterested in adding
> SS or PBR to the language.
I think what he's saying is that the functionality you desire is in OOEU,
and if we can get consensus amongst Euphoria users, it would be relatively
easy to add it to the primary Euphoria distribution.
> I was hoping that the introduction of open Eu might have allowed
> some advances to what is (lets face it) a toy language.
I strongly disagree. It's so advanced it's simple. :)
> 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.
I think your interpretation is skewed... I think it's more of, "Okay, we've
got this functionality in these packages, is it something you think would
work?"
I think it's important, also, to nail down the syntax, which hasn't been done.
Many options have been suggested. Should we vote on it or what?
> The other thing I notice is that RC is totally silent. Is he waiting for
> unanimity? Will he bless any change at all?
Rob?
> Without his input, none of this means anything at all.
I don't know if that's true. Let us get clarification: Rob, will any
requested changes need approval from you, even if there's community
consensus?
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
