Re: Eu improvements (part 4)
Pete Lomax wrote:
>
> Chris Bensler wrote:
> > the chaos of this and related threads.
> We love it!
> >
> > The type construct is not a suitable candidate for structured sequences.
> If we cannot morph types into what we need, then we need to rip them out of
> the language. I think we need something completely different for c-structs,
> let's not have multiple/incompatible user defined Eu-types as well. 100%
> backward
> compatibility for types must not become an overriding concern.
>
I think type() and structures co-exist quite nicely. type() functions very
well for restricting the values of items, while structures provide
control of, well, structure.
I might use structures to organize the fields of a customer list, but
I would want type() to validate that a zipcode is ok.
Type() and structures do different things.
> > The only way that it can be suitable is if a new syntax is introduced for
> > defining the structure members. The problem is in discerning private
> > variables used for the typecheck routine from the structure members.
> an "end enum" would do that nicely, much better than the while nextCh=','
> approach
> I was thinking of.
>
> >If Eu continues to stagnate at the expense of stubborn and unsubstantiated
> >opinions
> We have to rise above that. Advancement should not occur at the cost of free
> speech. We have to learn to ignore what we must in order to progress.
> Some of these concepts are profoundly difficult and it seems often beyond the
> ability of any one person to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, even
> theoretically.
> I feel I learn much from these discussions, chaos or not.
>
> I take the point that this anarchy is not very newbie-friendly, though.
>
> > I also suggest that this discussion should turn it's focus on WHAT exactly
> > needs improvement first. Nevermind how.
> > Does eu need structured sequences? I say yes
> > Does eu need oop functionality? I say yes
> > Perhaps before even answering those questions we should ask ourselves what
> > is Eu's purpose? Other than the obvious "it's for programming", what kind
> > of programming and what kind of programmers?
> What drives me most at the moment is how to add oft-requested features "in the
> style of" the existing Eu.
>
> Regards,
> Pete
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
