Re: voting on GOTO
> Look at the code in PCRE, as mentioned already and then see how goto would
> greatly
> simplify things.
There seem to be several chunks of PCRE-related code scattered around the SVN
trunk, some C, some Euphoria. Nothing I've looked at thus far has expressed a
need for GOTO. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction?
> Actually, for the feature set we've added we've been moving pretty slowly.
> Things
> have been discussed to great lengths on the dev list before we even think
> about
> proposing things here. In less the last 20 days nearly 1,000 (literally)
> messages
> have been exchanged on the dev list. Many ideas adopted, many canned, many
> that
> were good but slated for the future.
I completely was unaware of any developer mailing list. I thought EUforum was
the de facto discussion on the direction of Euphoria. In fact, I am not even a
developer on the project, but I would very much like to be. I may not do much,
but if I could be added, that would be great.
> Everything that has been implemented thus far have been requests many years
> old. Is it bad that these requests many years old that have been discussed
> high
> and low are being implemented finally or implemented in the 4.0 release?
A lot of "feature requests" popup on the EUforum over and over, mostly from
newbies who've recently joined the list and were unaware the potential "feature"
had already been discussed to death. A lot of these potential "features" are
often turned down immediately, like the forward-referencing routine_id() bug,
GOTO and labels, OOP, and threading (just a few for example). These all get
turned down each time they come up, as the general consensus was that they are
bad and/or Rob did not want to implement them. But now that "we" can add
features, people seem more adamant about just jumping and adding them.
-Greg
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
