OpenEuphoria

Re: Euphoria 3.2 compatibility

• Posted by Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy at cowg?r?com> Apr 24, 2008
• 911 views

Matt Lewis wrote:
> 
> Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> > 
> > As it stands now, each new release of Euphoria changes a little bit and
> > could possibly break code a little bit each release. I hate to keep going
> > back to the peek2s example, but it's valid. If you made (or included) your
> > own peek2s and upgrade to 3.2, then you will have a problem. Now, it's
> > easily solved, yes, but a problem.
> 
> Can you elaborate on how this will break any existing code--unless maybe if
> you're also using safe.e?
> 

Ok, so I just tried it. I'm wrong. Having peek2s will not break code, it will
give a warning that it was redefined.

Now, I tried this as well:

=== hi.e

global procedure hi()
    puts(1, "hi.e: Hi!\n")
end procedure

=== test.e
include hi.e

procedure hi()
    puts(1, "test.e: Hi!\n")
end procedure

hi()
</eucode>
{{{


That works also, however, it does not give a warning that hi() was redefined.

So, is the argument that new functions will break existing functions not valid?
Therefore, we may have broke nothing what-so-ever in the 3.2/4.0 release?

I guess I was just moving on things I thought I saw in the past and what others
have stated as well. I just tried this test in 3.1 and it works as well in 3.1.

--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com