OpenEuphoria

Re: My Lobbying

• Posted by Irv Mullins <irv at ELLIJAY.COM> Sep 06, 2000
• 448 views

----- Original Message -----
From: Derek Parnell <dparnell at BIGPOND.NET.AU>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: My Lobbying
\
> I was thinking more along the lines of ...
>
>   if not defined True then
>      constant True = 1
>   end if
>   if not defined False then
>      constant False = 0
>   end if
>
>   if not defined trim then
>     function trim(sequence s)
>     .
>     .
>     .
>     end function
>   end if
>
> etc...

I see. That is a problem I haven't run across. Generally, I just go ahead
and
use a constant or variable, and if it isn't defined somewhere, I'll get an
error the first time I try to run the program. Then I can define it as I
want,
without worrying about breaking someone else's code.

On the other hand, if I try to define TRUE, even though it has already been
defined
elsewhere, I'll get a message telling me this. That approach seems
completely
satisfactory, and reduces the possibility of introducing new and puzzling
bugs. Suppose I define TRUE='Y' somewhere, and you use it, expecting
it to be = 1?

> As many commonly required names (constants and functions) are missing from
> standard Euphoria, people have a tendency to re-invent them in the various
> generic include files. But not always. The namespace resolution should be
> one way of overcoming this, however it could still mean that unnecessary
> items get defined. Unnecessary, because a perfectly good definition might
> already exist, but because I can't be sure I define it again anyway, then
> use my definition and ignore the earlier one.

But, as things stand, you can't define something again, if it already
exists.
You'll be warned if you try, and you _cannot_ "ignore the earlier one".
If, on the other hand, it doesn't exist, then you have little choice but to
write the code, or find a library which already contains it.
So this is, as far as I can tell, a solution in search of a problem.

While it's true that there are a lot fewer  required names in Euphoria than
in other languages, that is a "good thing". Quick, list all the string
conversion
functions in C. Bet you miss a few. Now, cross off your list all those that
can't
be duplicated by combining two or three Euphoria commands. Not many left,
are there?

Irv