Re: Eu improvements (part 4)
Karl Bochert wrote:
>
> 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.
Whoa! I think you've misinterpreted. ooeu is based on openEu, and IMHO
is a great place for some of these things to test out, courtesy of me.
I've implemented most of what you're looking for with the SS concept, as
well as an implementation of PBR. If people are interested in what you're
talking about, they could try it out with ooeu, since there's code that
works right now, as opposed to putting up demo code in a forum message.
> 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 -
I think Rob is watching (or maybe taking a nap--let's face it, there's been
a lot of discussion in a fairly short time, so who knows if he's been
anywhere near a computer). There's no need to rush to make a decision
about this. People can always start working on coding up whatever they
want. Everybody isn't going to agree with whatever gets developed, so
we need to find a good solution.
Matt
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
