OpenEuphoria

Re: Just say 'YES' to strings (or not?)

• Posted by Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com> Jun 04, 2004
• 599 views

irv mullins wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "irv mullins" <guest at RapidEuphoria.com>
> To: <EUforum at topica.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 3:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Just say 'YES' to strings (or not?)
> 
> 
> > posted by: irv mullins <irvm at ellijay.com>
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > Where it would 'cost' (in a negative sense) would be in the 75% savings
> > when storing text. To be able to process roughly 4x as much data in memory
> > would be a big plus to some people.
> 
> I Agree and like this

I would not like to lose fast Unicode strings (UTF-32).

[snip]

> > We'd also be able to use the = sign in a logical manner for comparing
> stringsm
> > and ditch that stupid equal().
> > When was the last time you wanted to compare two strings and get back a
> > sequence of ones and zeros?  Is there any reason you could not get that
> > result by writing a simple loop, in the rare event you really needed it?
> 

[snipped some 'real world' examples from unkmar]

I don't think anyone is saying that the functionality is never needed,
but I think what's more a problem is the syntax needed to trigger the
functionality.

So rather than ...

  mask = (bmp = 128)

as currently required, a built-in function might have been a 
better way to cause this type of function to run.

  mask = Test(bmp, '=', 128)

That would have left the symbol '=' to mean a test for equality rather
than a function that returns data of the same type as the first operand.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia