Re: Standard Euphoria Library project
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> Jason Gade wrote:
>
> > For the most part my quick and unscientific survey finds that a lot of
> > "standard library" functionality exists in the archive.
>
> Well, partly ...
>
> I'm sorry that I must say that, but several of the user contributions
> are incomplete, buggy, written in a style almost unreadable by others
> etc.
>
> E.g. what "standard" operations can be done with sets? There are only a
> few of those operations, which we'll find in math textbooks.
> Or we can look e.g. at <<a
> href="http://www.brpreiss.com/books/opus4/">http://www.brpreiss.com/books/opus4/</a>>,
> or we can
> e.g. look what routines other, *very popular* languages have implemented,
> such as Python.
> We have a "sets.e" contribution in the archives. Does this contribution
> cover these basic functions? No, it doesn't. But a "Standard Library"
> that deserves that name certainly should do so! The same is with Fuzzy
> Sets, and ... These are only some examples which I know from memory.
>
Yes, we should look at what and how other popular languages include in their
standard libraries, even C/C++. That is very important. But we must also take
into account what Euphoria already has built-in or in the RDS library so we don't
duplicate effort.
> > I think that it is just a question of pulling it all together and
> > then finding out and adding whatever is still missing.
>
> "Standard" should also mean IMHO, that we'll have some internal
> standards concerning the way *how* the library is created. That will
> make a big difference to all the "private" contributions.
>
> Regards,
> Juergen
Various libraries in the archive contain useful routines. Sometimes it is
better to re-package them and sometimes it is better to rewrite them to meet the
"how" part of the library.
=====================================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
j.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
