OpenEuphoria

Re: deepening listed subscripting

• Posted by Antonio Alessi <a.admin at myway.it> Apr 26, 2006
• 491 views

Jeremy Peterson wrote:
> 
> I think it's better to have it that way.  That is the way I'd expect it to be.
>     
> Simple?  Euphoria is supposed to be a easy language, according to Rob.  Adding
> stuff like this is, I think going to confuse people when they see in a line:
> 
> &[5..9][27..$]  It doesn't look like regular eucode.  Plus I don't think
> it's needed.  A change like this will save a little typing, but only if your'
> in the habit of using long variable names or something.  Just something to
> think
> about...
> 
> Jeremy


Hello Jeremy,

if &[5..9][27..$] do confuse people, I think it's better those people don't 
begin programming at all. Euphoria is much more complex than this, although
is supposed to be an easy language, or it wouldn't be so powerful.  

In my opinion, easy does not mean elementary but plain and well structured,
thus allowing to perform very complex actions with ease. 
Basic "was" much more simple than Euphoria, but could not reach the half 
of the possible EU solutions with the same minimum amount of program lines.

However nobody is compelled to use unfamiliar formulas, even if I believe it 
could deal with a typical problem of the first time: 
    "That is (not) the way I'd expect it to be.". 
Truly this enhancement that I suggested is simpler than others in this forum 
and I don't understand why so much reactions could arise for.

I could also ask what "regular eucode" means for you, but I don't.
I can just conclude quoting the Rob's answer, since this was not on Euforum:

"Thanks, I'll consider it.
I hadn't thought of that before."


antonio