OpenEuphoria

Re: Standardized Euphoria

• Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net> Dec 24, 2006
• 740 views

Ray Smith wrote:
> 
> Chris Bensler wrote:
> > "1. Besides additional functionality, I would prefer to redesign/reorganize
> > the
> > existing libs. Would this be acceptable to people?
> 
> Do you mean change the current include files so they aren't compatible with
> 
> the current version?
> 
> I'd say no to this.
> 
> Make your new libs based on the old ones (make copies and rename to something
> else) go crazy, go nuts break all compatibility if you want.  If they turn out
> to be superior they will eventually replace the current versions.  BUT don't
> change the current libs without the alternative released, tested and 
> documented well before it becomes "official".

I wish I could just take my own path and start right from scratch, but that's
not going to happen. I've tried already with my empire libs.

How do you propose to convince people to actually use a library that is entirely
incompatible with existing code for Euphoria and uses obfuscated names, just so
that it doesn't conflict with the RDS libs, eventhough they should never be used
in conjunction?

Yet again, my plans to reorganize the RDS libs _would not be incompatible_.
Yes they will break compatability, but I will be providing a way for them to be
compatible. What's the problem with that?


Chris Bensler
~ The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is that little extra ~
http://empire.iwireweb.com - Empire for Euphoria