OpenEuphoria

Re: RFC: Breaking existing Euphoria functionality

• Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> Feb 22, 2007
• 580 views

Michael J. Sabal wrote:
> Is there any code in the archives or recent user contributions (say less 
> than 3 years old) that takes advantage of this functionality?
> 
> I would like to change binary_ops() in be_runtime.c so that the result of
> comparing two sequences with an operator (=,<,>,<=,>=,!=) returns a single
> boolean rather than a sequence of booleans.

I have previously analysed this in detail for a few programs:

win32lib contains some 18 instances of sequence ops (out of 45,000 lines of
code), 3 of which are relational ops.

arwen contains some 6 instances of sequence ops (out of 12,000 lines of code), 0
of which are relational ops.

Edita contains some 11 instances of sequence ops (out of 30,000 lines of code),
0 of which are relational ops.

wildcard.e, routines upper() and lower(), uses relational sequence ops.

Hence I can claim with some authority that sequence ops are used on average less
than once per 2000 lines of code, relational ops even less so.

Obviously it is a trivial matter to "fix" these once you know where they are (I
can supply detailed instructions on request, along with a set of replacement
functions).

I would strongly recommend changing the compiler to recognise such sequence ops
and issue errors, if you or anyone else want to make such a change.
I will add that is not possible in many cases, eg in upper()/lower() they act on
objects, whereas eg rect[1..2]+=rect[3..4] is clearly detectable.

Regards,
Pete