OO Survey->structures
mistertrik at hotmail.com wrote:
> What I think Euphoria should have:
> structures!
>
> This allows for "pseudo" object orientedness. If you want to have some
> data
> in easily recogniseable chunks, an array of structures is the way to go.
>
> It's easily recognisable as a discrete entity, and could run much faster
>
> than complicated multidimensional arrays with constants declared to
> point to
> certain objects in the array (What I have to do now :o(. ) With this
> last
> basic data type, it would be complete euphoria's wonderful data system.
>
> I know that the freedom to dynamically mess with sequences in euphoria
> is
> wonderful, but the flip side to that is the introduction of odd bugs
> that
> came about because of a pair of oddly placed curlies (or lack thereof)
> in
> the depths of an algorithm. I think that for people who WANT their data
> to
> stay in fixed order - especially for the situations where you end up
> trying
> to maintain it just as much as you are debugging the rest of your code
> -,
> structures should be allowed.
>
> As far as I see it, you could even have the best of both worlds. Have
> your
> dynamic sequences, with the ability to put anything anywhere, but also
> have
> the ability to assign a structure to a member of that sequence. This
> would
> in my mind make it far easier to implement a more object-friendly
> environment, and simplify managing data that belongs in discrete groups.
>
> This of course, is just my opinion. I would love to hear debate from the
>
> community about what their thoughts on this issue are, and how it
> could/should/would be implemented.
>
> Alright, I've finished my rant.
Here is Rob Craig explaining about structures:
http://www.topica.com/lists/EUforum/read/message.html?mid=1707843577
Jerry Story
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
