Re: Euphoria Developers Group Discussion
CChris wrote:
>
> Derek Parnell wrote:
> >
> > c.k.lester wrote:
> > >
> > > CChris wrote:
> > >
> > > > Did you notice how many improvements that would have broken zero code,
> > > > because they were giving meaning to something currently illegal, were
> > > > brought down because
> > > > "name is not right", "one keyword more is too much" and such? A lot.
> > >
> > > Such is the dynamics of design by committee. :)
> >
> > Before we accept this assertion, can we have some examples of what you are
> > talking
> > about Chris?
>
> - Structure field declarations
This one certainly isn't about "name." There are some serious differences of
opinion about how detailed this should be.
> - continue, select ... case
Could you point out where the name/keyword issue has stopped this? I
thought everyone was in agreement about the implementation. Continue
is already in there. We could still change the name easily enough. I
also thought that we've basically agreed about the need for case, but
not the details yet. Either way, your argument doesn't fit.
> - min, max and friends
There were debates about what sort of arguments, etc, this should take.
> - [] desequence operator
I don't recall arguments about this one...
> - sequence of <type>
There are serious performance issues here that I don't think were ever
addressed. Plus serious disagreements about how it should behave.
> an many more, didn't keep a complete tally, being tired of the repeating
> pattern.
Sorry, but unless you can find some real examples, I'm calling BS. C'mon,
there were substantial disagreements about how most of these things should
be implemented. It's too bad that we can't all agree, but that's life.
Matt
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
