OpenEuphoria

Re: Internal suroutines

• Posted by Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com> Oct 06, 2003
• 384 views

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Lynch" <plynch49 at hotmail.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: RE: Internal suroutines


> 
> 
>  If your premise is that clarity is reduced by the use of an internal or 
> sub-procedure, then i have to disagree.

No, this is not what I meant. Using a sub-procedure is generally a good thing,
but its the ability to fall-thru to a labelled statement that causes some
concerns.

>  Gosub vs Goto is the equivalent of 
>  Perform vs Goto in COBOL
>  RTJ vs JMP in assembler

Agreed. And Gosub is equivalent to Euphoria's call statement when used without
parameters.

> 
>  There are difficult issues of scope in implementing sub-procedures, but 
> at present if i want to encapsulate anything i need to put it in a 
> separate 'process'.

Good. This is a useful thing to do. 

>  I dont want to see the particular element GOSUB, but i wonder if 
> anybody else sees the value of allowing arbitrary decomposition of 
> functional primitives - sometimes they can be quite long, and are 
> obscured simply by the number of levels of logic in them.
>  Sub-procedures allow a further refinement of the decomposition process, 
> which is i believe the basis of software implementation.

My premise is that Euphoria already has such a facility, only with three
differences - You can't fall-thru to Eu procedures (a good thing) and you can't
refer to a procedure that occurs further down in the source code (a not-so-good
thing), and you can pass the routine parameters (a good thing).

-- 
Derek