Re: Vacation
- Posted by David Cuny <dcuny at LANSET.COM> Sep 07, 1998
- 400 views
Robert wrote: >recently, I'm now leaning towards adding assignment >operators like C: += -= *= /= Hurrah! (But see my whining later in this post...) >David Cuny's preprocessor has these operators already, >although he has them backwards from C Yeah, I noticed this some time after I had released it. I decided that it was too late to change it. Unlike Euphoria and C, PP *is* sensitive to white space. >I don't plan to add: > &= > append= > ++ > -- >or any others. Since '&' and 'append' are the basic sequence operators, it would be nice if these were also represented. I would suspect that you could optimize these calls so a sequence copy would not be requires, although you've hinted that particular optimization would be available automatically for all functions. -- begin whining -- Personally, I'm still in favor of this sort of syntax: a.plus(12) -- a = a + 1 [actually, a = plus( a, 1 )] a.append( "foo" ) -- a = append( a, "foo" ) a.concat( "bar" ) -- a = a & "bar" [ok, really a = concat( a, "bar" ) for ALL functions and procs. I think it's *better* than the 'op=' syntax, because it's universal. The syntax is (IMHO) clean, natural, and doesn't conflict with existing Euphoria syntax. You can write very OOP-ish code without having the overhead of OOP. For example: theWindow.grow( 10, 10 ) would convert to: grow( theWindow, 10, 10 ) if 'grow' was a procedure, and: theWIndow = grow( theWindow, 10, 10 ) if it were a function. If anyone is curious how this would work, my DOT program implements this as a pre-processor. Robert. could you at least play with it before deciding it's a bad idea? Preferably, when you're back from vacation and in a very good mood... But I suspect that on this I'm alone in my beliefs. -- end whining -- > I expect to see some great new Euphoria programs > when I get back I might be ready to release a pre-pre alpha of my latest project by then. Don't bet on it, though... Have a great time! -- David Cuny