OpenEuphoria

Re: RFC: Breaking existing Euphoria functionality

• Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> Feb 23, 2007
• 567 views

I wrote:
> The meaning of code should not be context-sensitive like this, imo.
Sorry, hit post too soon; I also wanted to say (/repeat) that once, to my shame,
I wrote a paragraph entitled "Atomic Coercion and Propagation in Expressions". It
was some nasty trash. In essence/hindsight this happens:

if (a=b)=(c=d) then

becomes ambiguous under any such scheme. To illustrate, let a=b="123"; and
c=d="1234", but True=True whereas {1,1,1}!={1,1,1,1}.

I will not argue over "preferred" meaning; both are valid. It is ambiguous.

Regards,
Pete