OpenEuphoria

RE: private include files

• Posted by irv mullins <irvm at ellijay.com> Oct 13, 2004
• 467 views

Chris Bensler wrote:

> If you are going to fix the problem, fix it right.
> I for one, would not advocate for 'local includes'. Yes, I've discussed 
> this issue enough, that I have coined a term for the concept. The 
> problem is deeper than simply providing a way for people to write more 
> isolated code. Euphoria does not need more hacks.
> 
> I could reiterate what Juergen said, but I won't bother.
> I'm glad to see there are other people like me, who actually want what 
> is best for Euphoria, not just themselves. Breaking compatability, is 
> not a justifiable argument against such a fundamental change. It's 
> IMPOSSIBLE to avoid breaking code, if we ever want Euphoria to actually 
> improve.

I have never been able to understand Rob's reluctance to 'break code'.
What code is he worried about? The handful of libraries which come 
packaged with Euphoria? How long could it possibly take to change those,
especially considering they would be changed by Rob, who would know 
exactly what and how the new features are supposed to work. 

If he's worried about breaking other code, such as Win32Lib, well, 
first of all, that's not his problem, it's Derek's - and Derek has 
been one of the most vocal in requesting changes. Somehow, I don't 
think he would mind. As for other less-used libraries, then whoever 
actually uses those libraries can either fix them up and submit them 
to the archives, or request that the original author or whoever's 
willing do so. I can't think of any code in the archives which 
wouldn't benefit from a review, anyway.

I think the whole 'might break some code' is a straw-man argument.
Look at other languages where new versions break large amounts of 
code - Python and perl come to mind - has that hurt their popularity?
Didn't think so.

> One benefit of RDS's infamously glacial speeds of change, is that I can 
> be confident that this idea doesn't stand a chance of being implemented 
> any time soon, even if it is popular.

Comparison to glaciers is unfair - to glaciers. 
With a glacier, it's possible to predict exactly where they're going :)

Irv