Re: Eu Improvements consolidation
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> Karl Bochert wrote:
> >
> >
> > The 'fixed sequence':
> > 1) has named elements
> > 2) cannot have its structure modified
> > 3) contains only data (like any other sequence)
> > 4) may be put in another sequence without losing its
> > identity (like any other data)
> >
> > KtB
>
> One thing I've been trying to point out is the Matt's ooeu does this but the
> syntax is a little different. Matt would have to answer if it fits all four
> of your criteria but I believe that it at least follows the first three.
I don't cover 2 or 3, and 4 is maintained only if you put it into another
class into a member of the appropriate type. I was more interested in
the functionality than strict type checking. Being able to have control
over the data is one reason why I like Euphoria, and to do those things
would have taken a lot more effort than what I did. :)
> >
> > This creates a user defined type by restricting the types in a sequence,
> > much as Eu's 'type' creates a user defined type by restricting the
> > values of an existing type.
> >
> > The sequences 'x' and 'y' are simply created as exact duplicates of the
> > sequence 'point', values and all.
> >
> > We can now create complex sequences whose elements are named(documented)
> > and enforced(fewer bugs).
> >
> > KtB
>
> ooeu handles the first part, I'm not sure about runtime type checking. I can't
> find it in the ooeu docs. Again, it's a question for Matt.
I don't have this feature, basically for the reason mentioned above.
>
> I'm not going to quote part four. I didn't really understand the post (even
> though I understand PBR) so I'll need to read it a few times.
>
> Just as a note: ooeu has var_id() which works like routine_id(). You can grab
> the id of a variable and modify it directly so you can do PBR. But it's more
> like pointers than automatic.
That's a good point. There are actually two types of PBR in ooeu, once
you consider var_id's.
Matt
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
