Re: deepening listed subscripting
>From: Antonio Alessi <guest at RapidEuphoria.com>
>Reply-To: EUforum at topica.com
>To: EUforum at topica.com
>Subject: Re: deepening listed subscripting
>Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:08:48 -0700
>
>posted by: Antonio Alessi <a.admin at myway.it>
>
>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.
>
Ah, but it seems you can still be confused. You see, s[5..9][27..$]
currently means nothing. But what if, for example, we had s = {{1, 2, 3, 4,
5}, {6, 7, 8, 9, 10}, {11, 12, 13, 14, 15}, {16, 17, 18, 19, 20}, {21, 22,
23, 24, 25}}, then with your shortcut [2][4..5] would be {6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
{16, 17, 18, 19, 20}, {21, 22, 23, 24, 25}} but if you used regular old
eucode, s[2][4..5] is {9, 10}. Now, you may have very well known that when
you wrote x = s[1] & '3' & [2][4..5] that you wanted x = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
'3', 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, {16, 17, 18, 19, 20}, {21, 22, 23, 24, 25}}. But if
someone else is reading that, and all they heard about was the meaning of
s[2][4..5] that we currently have (which is not all too common with arrays),
what would they think the result would be? I would expect x = {1, 2, 3, 4,
5, '3', 9, 10} as a best guess.
Certain shortcuts like $ instead of length(var) or &= made sense.... Some
just make things more confusing. Dangling subscripts are not a good thing.
As someone else mentioned, what happens when there is more than one
sequence? What if the second variable is an atom; should you ignore it? What
if you later change it to a object; would that cause an error? What if it
didn't cause an error, and you accidently had a sequence in that variable;
how hard would it be to find that bug? What if I put parentheses around
things; which comes first? Can I do something like x = s[2] * [4] and expect
it to make sense? Certainly it looks somewhat odd to be doing func(x[2],
[5][3], [6]), doesn't it...
>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
>
~[ WingZone ]~
http://wingzone.tripod.com/
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
