Re: 1 pass?
Lewis Townsend wrote:
>Jiri wrote:
>
>>I realize, you feel quite strongly about this "define it before you
>>use it" thing, you mentioned it already several times. But I urge you
>>to think about it again, and I hope you will eventually see it has
>>absolutely nothing to do with readability or maintainability of the
>>code.
>
>I beg to differ, the "define it before you use it" is not least among
>the many features of Euphoria that makes it possible for me to program.
>This simple consistancy is in my opinion a high priority for
>readability. I like to know that my program stopped exactly where an
>error occurred instead of sweeping past it only to discover later that
>something is wrong. This may sound strange but I don't want my program
>to run a line past the spot that I make a mistake. I guess I like order
>a lot.
Lewis, in your rush to support the status quo (pretty common on this
list) you completely missed the point (as so many others did too,
judging from the response). But you all do not have to worry, your
blunders would be unaffected, because you could get exactly the same
error messages, pinpointing your mistakes, as it's done now, only
perhaps several milliseconds later, when the interpreter/compiler
reaches the end of the source code and it can be sure you again forgot
to declare some of your routines. Enough, no point. Jiri
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
