Re: new Eu version, no built-in socks yet
Kat wrote:
>Eu's lack of this caused a couple people to move from Eu to Rebol. The thing
>is, i really need Eu for working code, and only a small part of Rebol's
>abilities for ease of connections. Like i've said here before, rather than
>making a lot of difficult calls to a big include file to do port i/o, a few
>extensions to the existing file commands will do fine. Then an include file
>can be made for the different protocols, and interfacing the ports to VEL,
>etc. for a graphic html web browser or whatever.
>
>Kat
I think I'll hire you next time I need someone to pick their way through a
minefield. You seem to have a talent for stepping on all the live ones...and
in a much more endearing manner than myself. If Euphoria had an
easily extendable call interface, maybe using templates or zing! zing!
STRUCTURES, then it might be quite easy to do in REBOL what REBOL
does best and in Euphoria what Euphoria does best. Wouldn't that be a
novel idea for reducing the demands on Rob for changes to Euphoria. Give
us that flexible, extendable call interface along with name spaces and
structures and the rest can be accomplished whereever is best. No more
peeking and poking, no more routine_id and call_c_func(). Just a single,
flexible call interface and some data naming and structuring and Euphoria
can then just coast along on it's beauty forever.
Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
