Re: Problems with GET.E
Jiri Babor wrote:
>Rob Craig wrote:
>
>>Roderick Jackson already suggested that, and I am still
>>opposed to that idea. Adding your own extra space with puts()
>>is easy. Removing an unwanted extra space could
>>be difficult. Also, some existing code would probably break.
>
>No matter how hard I try I cannot imagine why on earth I would
>want to remove the extra space. Without it the data is unusable
>anyway.
Rob,
Thanks for making a statement on this one way or the
other. I'm not trying to "twist your arm" or anything
to change the language. But, I think you might want
to spend at least a little bit of time reconsidering:
I doubt there is more than a minute fraction of code
out there that uses print() in such a way that a new
format would break it. (I'm not counting the
instances where it's used inbetween puts(), since
that's generally an unformatted usage anyway.) If I
may suggest, a sampling of user contributions would
likely support this.
True, print() can be used seperately from get(). But I
would think that the instances where get() is used
without print() are smaller in number than the
instances where code would be broken by a new format.
get() practically demands a parallel routine that
writes data in a form get() can use. It's almost certain
that anyone using get() would NOT want the space removed.
If you still have concerns about changing print(),
perhaps a solution previously mentioned, a new routine
(e.g., put()) could solve most ills from this. It wouldn't
have to be a built-in; in fact, it would make sense to
locate it in the GET.E file, along with get(). It could
consist of nothing more than a call to print() and a call
to puts() for the space. I only suggest making it a
provided routine because (1) it then becomes a standard,
and (2) it avoids the 'remove' problem of having several
identical local routines (since practically anyone using
get() will use it.)
Rod Jackson
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
