OpenEuphoria

Re: A rather dreamy request...

• Posted by Irv <irv at ELLIJAY.COM> Aug 19, 1998
• 612 views

Hawke wrote:
...<snip>
> Here goes:
> In euphoria, you have three data types: atoms, sequences,
> and objects. A sequence can be either a collection
> of atoms, atoms & sequences, or sequences of sequences.
> An object can be either an atom or sequence.
> Nothing but the obvious so far..right? Onwards.
> We have all been talking about OOP, dotnotations,
> etc.etc.etc. blahblahblah ad nauseum...
> What is the difference between Pascal/C and euph?
> Data structures can contain procedure/function names.
> It becomes the 'method', the way of calling a function
> if an *element* is addressed.
....<snip>

The real difference? In C or Pascal, you can declare an element of a
structure to be: integer, string, func, proc, etc....
Euphoria doesn't allow that. There's the prob. You have:
a. lost the ability to type-check stuff going into a structured
variable, and
b. the program no longer has any way to tell what is legal to do with
that variable.

> btnStartTimer[color]    = {129,223,59}   --RGB for font(trucolor??)
> btnStartTimer[sunken]   = FALSE --false is raised/etched
> btnStartTimer[clicked]  = --this is the idea...
> ====end pseudocode======
>
> see, btnStartTimer[clicked] would somehow be a *function*...

Yes. and btnStartTimer[sunken] would be boolean. If there was a byte
stored with
that element of the structure, Euphoria could examine the byte and
decide how to
handle the request (either make an assignment or return a value) in the
same
manner it does now with:
x = 0
if x then ... -- where x is 1 or 0.

I don't know how difficult such a thing might be to add. But all the
discussion
on these subjects is leading the same way: simpler and more versatile
syntax.

Regards,

Irv