Re: Nested routines
Jason Gade wrote:
>
>
> I prefer a bare minimum to a kitchen-sink approach.
>
> It seems like we've gone from discussing and adding functionality that has
> been
> requested and/or generally agreed upon by the community to just adding in any
> old thing.
>
Jason,
I would like to point out that everything that has been added has been
discussed, with the exception of the entry keyword, which was a carry over from a
merge. At that, the entry keyword is being discussed currently because people are
questioning it as they saw in the peer reviewing that is continuously going on
during svn commits.
Euphoria 4.0 has not yet hit an alpha stage and even during the alpha stage the
keywords, constructs and API are free to change.
The current discussion about nested routines, OO, etc... are just that, they are
very, very pre-even thinking about adding, discussions to see what people think
of those constructs.
> This beautiful, simple language is starting to suffer from some serious
> uglification IMV.
>
Can you be a little more precise on what additions to Euphoria in 4.0 you think
are ugly so we can re-evaluate them? If they are currently being discussed,
please let those out as discussions are already going on. If they have not yet
been added, please leave those out as they are also being discussed already. I am
speaking of what has been added or has been approved to be added?
The list can be seen:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=4831C95F.709%40cowgar.com
To keep things in order and the discussions able to be followed, for each issue
that you wish to discuss, can you start a new thread for? Thank you.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
