RE: Small feature request for future EU versions
Pete Lomax wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:24:23 -0700, rudy toews
> <guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>
> >> Derek Parnell wrote:
> >> > Yes, this is going to be survival-of-the-fitest game, with lots
> >> > of variants vying for attention.
> >please don't go off in different directions like pieces of a bomb.
> >communicate with each other
> FWIW, new operators are not actually needed, it is quite easy to
> greatly improve the language using the current ones.
>
> Taking the if <expr> then example, the interpreter should realise that
> <expr> must deliver a boolean result (or crash), in other words map
>
> e1<e2 to compare(e1,e2)=-1
> e1<=e2 to compare(e1,e2)!=1
> e1=e2 to equal(e1,e2),
> e1!=e2 to not equal(e1,e2),
> e1>=e2 to compare(e1,e2)!=-1
> e1>e2 to compare(e1,e2)=1
>
> Of course, it does not need to do this if e1 and e2 are both atoms.
>
> Taking this a step further "if <e1> and <e2> then" must also deliver a
> boolean result, which means the "need" for a boolean result must be
> propagated into e1 and e2. The same is true for all the other
> operators (not, unary minus, +, -, *, /, or, xor), and the same logic
> applies to while, for, subscript, and slice expressions, but not to
> assignments, constants, or parameters. If this all sounds horribly
> complicated, don't worry, in practice it's not. I already have this
> working in Posetf 
)
>
> Regards,
> Pete
>
The reason Euphoria crashes when you pass a sequence as a condition, is
because it assumes you made a mistake, rather than assuming what you
wanted to do, it plays dumb. I prefer it to behave exactly as I tell it
to. If it crashes, then I just have to fix it.
If it assumes what I meant, there is a good possibility, that is really
is a mistake, and eu will keep going, with perfectly valid execution,
eventhough it may be wrong, making it that much harder to find and fix.
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
