Re: Digest for EUforum at topica.com, issue 6333
> Subject: Re: Eu Improvements consolidation
>
>
> posted by: Karl Bochert <kbochert at copper.net>
>
> Jason Gade wrote:
> >
> > I've looked at part 4 and I've decided to hold off commenting on PBR any
> > further.
> >
> A wise decision. It was a mistake on my part to propose two features
> at once. If SS were accepted, PBR could be considered next, but I think
> it is a 'bigger' issue.
>
> > Which feature is more important--structured sequences or pass by reference?
> > I think we should concentrate on discussing one at a time.
> >
> SS, by far
>
> KtB
>
PBR by far.
* It allows automatic updating (exit all bugs related to failing to do
so),
* enables true exchange of data (instead oof using globals in so many
places),
* enables to transform an object (exit
seq[idx1][idx2][idx3]=append(seq[idx1][idx2][idx3],something).)
* and more
I am very surprised at posts I have seen these days. I have used PBR in
every programming languages I have used so far - even asm knows about
PBR! - and cannot see the problem with it. You only have to specify PBV
or PBR when you declare parameters. The way Pascal does it suits me
fine. Can someone explain why there's almost hatred towards PBR here?
I am not saying that structures, ie locations in memory with individual
type checking and global consistency checks, accessed in a object.member
fashion, are not useful. They definitely are. But IMHO less than PBR.
CChris
--
cchris005 at fastmail.fm
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
unladen european swallow
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
