OpenEuphoria

Re: Repeat efficiency

• Posted by Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com> Feb 20, 2003
• 464 views

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:47:25 +0000, Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk> 
wrote:

>
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:50:04 +0000, Andy Serpa <ac at onehorseshy.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think it was intuitive of you -- I think the required order of terms 
>> is counter-inituitive.  The only reason I noticed is because I always 
>> screw that one up.  Just seems more natural the other way...
>
> set(z,y,x)...
>
> Right or wrong, bit late to change it anyway?:
>
> 	Starting at z set to y the next x bytes
> vs:
> 	Starting at z set x bytes to y...
>
> Just to be damn awkward, what makes sense for me is:
>
> 	set_mem(x,z,y)
>
> aka set x bytes from address z on to y.
>
> Am I kidding? you figure it out 
>
> ...
>
>
> ...
>
>
> This is precisely the kind of thing that should not suddenly cease to
> work, but in java-speak "deprecated" and something better invented.
>
> However, of course, the documentation is pretty exact and really, for
> such a rarely used function, why mess?
>

Though I do like the ability in Visual Basic to have named parameters, to 
do this sort of thing...

   mem_set Addr:=z, Size:=m, Value:=0

that way the coder can place the parameters in any order that makes sense 
for them.


-- 

cheers,
Derek Parnell