OpenEuphoria

Re: Eu Improvements consolidation

• Posted by Karl Bochert <kbochert at copper.net> Jan 06, 2007
• 692 views

Matt Lewis wrote:
> 
> Karl Bochert wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > Stricter typechecking make the code harder to write, but easier to read.
> > You must invest a (very)little more writing time up front, and a
> > little more discipline when using them. (many would think that a good
> > thing).
> > I appreciate that SS takes away a little of that gunslinger freedom, but
> > then you don't have to use them.
> > 
> 
> Yes, I agree that the stricter type checking is generally considered a
> 'good thing' from a computer science perspective, and I mostly agree with
> that.  However, it's probably more of an emotional issue for me--just 
> something that I like--and I'm not ready to give it up just yet.
> 
Yes, all rules seem to have so many exceptions that it is hard to call
them rules 
I think that most of the versatility of Eu remains, and you don't really
lose the dynamic typing.

struct myvars is
      object flag
      sequence bits
    end struct

Now myvars.flag or myvars.bits[1] can hold can hold anything.

You have 'type freedom' but you still have namespacing, the
documentation provided by the name, a convenient way to group related
things (and some other things).

Note that 'flag' and 'bits' above are initialized

?myvars.flag  --> "0"
    ?myflags.bits  --> "{}"

KtB