OpenEuphoria

Re: Feature suggestion: without keyword=

• Posted by Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy at ?owgar.c?m> May 20, 2008
• 579 views

Michael J. Sabal wrote:
> 
> 
> I don't believe the complexity or parsing time would be significant, as long
> as this statement were limited to the first line(s) of code.  Essentially, 
> all you're doing is manipulating the symbol table.  If the entry doesn't 
> exist among the built-in symbols, then it can't get an opcode and will cause
> no conflict.  
>

The symbol table is global. You cannot modify the symbol table for just one file
(I don't think?).
 
> 
> Simple search and replace is rarely so simple, especially in code.  

Hm, I just did a sed in euphoria/include and replaced the variable named fn with
replace_fn_var_for_testing. It worked fine, all unit tests still pass.

> By telling
> people to maintain multiple versions of the interpreter in their environments,
> it's as bad as Microsoft telling us we have to use .NET v1.1 for feature a,
> 
> but .NET v3.0 for feature b; and the two aren't compatible.  

No matter about incompatibilities in syntax, there are going to be other
incompatibilities. Removing a keyword is going to fix very little code. For
instance, 3.1 code requires a few functions in misc.e that are no longer there.
3.1 code will break regardless if the continue keyword is present.

Adding this option is *not* going to enable 3.1 code to run. The only way 3.1
code will run is to have 3.1. If you do not want to maintain multiple installs of
Euphoria (which is actually, super simple) then you can bind or translate the 3.1
program and call it independent of any Euphoria install.

> If you want to
> fork off Eu 4.0, by all means go ahead.  But mark my words, nothing will kill
> this language or community faster than forking versions.

How did we get to forking? That's a terrible idea. My statement was simple: "I
do not like this idea, but everything has to come up for a vote. I am simply
saying that I will vote a firm no to this proposal." Does that sound like someone
who wants to fork Euphoria?

But please, the main grunt of this message here is that disabling a keyword *is
not* going to enable you to run 3.1 code.

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