Re: Eu improvements (part 4)
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 23:25:19 -0800, Chris Bensler
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>> > 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.
>
>Types are useful. They just aren't used as often as they should be because they
>lack enough value.
So add value!
>The concept is also different than structures. While they are similar,
>a type construct is eu's form of assertion used primarily for
>debugging. We don't want to be able to turn off the member
>typechecking for structures.
Oh, absolutely. Obviously no-one would ever feel confident that a
program that used structures actually works. </SARCASM>
Of course you MUST be ABLE to turn off member typechecking!
>> > 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.
>
>Euphoria has a definite lack of rules and exceptions. PLEASE let's
>keep it that way. Exceptions beget exceptions.
I take it you don't like enum/end enum. But what the heck did that wot
you just said mean?
>> >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.
>
>True, but it's not productive.
Well, I must disagree. Some of my recent musings have been shot down
in flames and that may have saved me MONTHS of wasted effort.
If that is not productive then I likely have a quite different
definition of productive to you.
Regards,
Pete
PS I've delayed replying on this one for a reason; trust me it is much
less vitriolic than my words were 48hrs ago! You probably touched a
few raw nerves there Chris.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
