Re: 1 pass?
I've been quite busy, and I just read this thread, which I concatonated
into a file.
>>>>>
You are absolutely right. This is not about easy recursivity, this is
about freedom to structure my programs in the best possible, logical
way for *me* to work on them. And I reserve my right to protest when
that freedom is denied on the flimsy pretext that it's good for me.
<<<<<
Yes, you do. You must also remember that it is *his* program, a
programming language for that matter. And although we can protest all we=
want, no one only Bob can make the changes. We have to respect that.
This doesn't mean I disagree with you. Frankly, it took a while for me t=
o
get adjusted to this 1 pass thing, before I realized that I had a
philosophical difference with Euphoria. In my view, this *is* a bottom-u=
p
language (instead I use routine_id, which I never have). For example, in=
a
program I wrote, I had to define all the procedures first, then work my w=
ay
up to the surface, and define procedure start() as my last procedure. Th=
is
is not the way I think.
On the other hand, define-it-before-use is something that I appreciate. =
Do
you not believe it is logical? If I have an error, I can say "oh, the
error happened here. The error happened in previous lines of code". If
our brains had our way, the error would be limited to the whole code. 1
pass lets you know you have a good program until the error.
A solution could be to wait until after the pass that these sorts of erro=
rs
are reported (no previous declaration errors). My brain is stuck right
now, and I can't think of a negative consequence for people who would sti=
ll
write in the original Euphorian style.
--Alan
=
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
