OpenEuphoria

Re: What's holding Euphoria back?

• Posted by Don Groves <groves at ACM.ORG> Jan 30, 1999
• 479 views

At 00:05 1/30/99 -0500, Robert Craig wrote:
>Irv Mullins writes:
>> 1. Lack of structures
>
>This has been discussed at length. There might be some
>support eventually, but it has to be something elegant and powerful.
>I don't want to keep adding "missing" features until Euphoria
>becomes "C++ with sequences".

I would like to add my support to the idea of "elegant and powerful".
Sequences themselves are elegant and powerful.  So far, the argument
for structures that I find most compelling is the namespace issue,
and apparently that will now be resolved (see #2 below).
I may be an old curmudgeon, but I refuse to use C++.  IMHO it is way
overly complex for the supposed benefits.  I probably wouldn't use
"C++ With Sequences" either, although it would be an improvement 


>> 2. Name space problems
>
>I consider name space issues to be very high priority for
>the next major release. I did not want to open this
>issue just before this release, as it impacts several different
>things in Euphoria, such as binding, tracing and routine_id(),
>in addition to normal symbol look-up. I want to do it right,
>not just a quick band-aid solution.

Again, I like Rob's approach.  Obviously, the namespace issue must
be resolved for Euphoria to be viable for widespread use, but I would
much rather see Euphoria evolve slowly, in a well thought-out manner,
than to make a bunch of changes later to what was working code because
things were implemented too quickly.

If we get to vote on syntax, I prefer <module_name>.<variable_name>
to <module_name>::<variable_name>.  The :: is just too C++ish for
me   Of course, <variable_name> alone always refers to the current
module.
--
Don Groves