OpenEuphoria

Re: Euphoria Standard Library on UBoard

• Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de> Jul 24, 2005
• 586 views

D. Newhall wrote:

> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>> I personally would highly prefer that we send e-mails, using the CC
>> feature, for internal discussions. I think my e-mail provider even
>> allows me to set up a mailing-list. So if we actually want to have an
>> ESL mailing-list, I'll try to create it.
>>
>> When there is substantial discussion on UBoard, we'll have to find a way
>> how that stuff is included in the ESL papers:
>>
>> a) Maybe someone posts a summary here on EUforum, so that I can do so.
>>                 or
>> b) probably better: Someone else will maintain the ESL papers.
>>    1) We'll put the papers on a different website.
>>                 or
>>    2) The papers will stay where they are. Someone sends me the updated
>>       HTML file(s), and I'll just upload them on my website.
>>
>> Everything will be OK for me, except expecting me to participate in web
>> forum discussions.
>
> The reason I like the forum idea is because simple comments on files
> can be made easily whereas with email or a mailing list every 1-2 line
> response has to get sent to the person's mailbox. Would you rather see
> all responses in one place or wade through emails trying to figure out
> which response goes with which message. Plus, we can also do voting
> much easier than through email (IMHO).

I know that many people like (and use) web forums. It's just that all
the things you mention above will happen without me. That's absolutely
OK for me. But then someone else probably should maintain the papers.

> The other thing I think that might be useful would be a wiki since that
> would make it easier to change the specifications but would probably
> open up a large number of other problems.

I like the wiki idea. But I don't know how much work it is to create one,
who is able and willing to do so, and what problems it would open up.

>>> I looked at Juergen web pages about ESL, and I have a small suggestion:
>>> the guidelines tell us that it's better not to use abbreviations, but in
>>> the math-page I see types like 'positive_int'. Wouldn't it be better to
>>> use the full 'integer'-name?
>>>  atom -> positive_atom; integer -> positive_integer
>>
>> I'll soon change the file 'math.htm' accordingly (hoping this is OK for
>> everyone).
> Yeah, we probably shouldn't abreviate it. Although, I am partial to
> using "cardinal" instead (probably a hold over from Modula-2
> programming).

"positive_integer" is more consistant with the names of the other
numeric types than "cardinal".

<snip>

Regards,
   Juergen