OpenEuphoria

Re: Wishlist

• Posted by Irv Mullins <irvm at ellijay.com> Jun 28, 2001
• 536 views

On Thursday 28 June 2001 02:03, daryl_vdb at HOTMAIL.COM wrote:


> Prehaps a better idea:
> procedure foo (byref sequence s1)
> or:
> procedure foo (sequence &s1)
>
> This way you would still have type checking.

Yes. However, you wouldn't know from reading the code that calls 
foo whether or not the parameter was being modified:
Example:

  foo(s)

You know that procedure foo() uses s, and does something, 
But what is the condition of s afterward? Do you know?
Not without reading the source for foo(), which may be difficult,
or even impossible (shrouded).

You also have no control over whether s will be modified or not. 
So you have to save it in a temp, and restore it afterward.
Not a good thing. 

Wouldn't it be easier to control that in YOUR code, by explicitly 
ALLOWING changes when you were willing to accept them:

foo ( vary x)  -- IF the procedure wants to and knows how, that is.
foo ( x ) -- use it, but don't lose it!

Regards,
Irv 



> >4-- Enhanced '?'
> >	If a sequence contains all ascii characters, output it as string.
>
> It may slow down the ? statement if the interpreter always has to check
> whether or not all the elements of a sequence are ASCII characters.
>
> >5-- Enhanced standard library(s), possibly built-in
> >	string functions
> >	regular expressions
> >	isAscii () etc.
> >	containers
> >
> >
> >
> >6-- slicing shorthands:
> >	seq[2..]     =>  seq[2..length(seq)]
> >	seq[i..-3]   =>  seq[i..length(seq-3)]
> >	seq = [2..]  =>  seq = seq[2..length(seq)]
> >	seq += "a"   =>  seq = append (seq, "a")
>
> The fourth one is already possible.
>
> seq &= "a"
>
> >15- Block comments
>
> That would be al right.  It would allow quick commenting of entire blocks
> of code.
>
>
>
>
>