RE: Why UDT's aren't used.
>From: Kat <gertie at visionsix.com>
>Subject: RE: Why UDT's aren't used.
> > <blink> <blink>
> > Um... I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
>It didn't look like Latin when i sent it, i swear.
>
>Ok,,,
<SNIP>
>Answered above. (didn't i?)
Well, not really. There are problems I can see with that implementation:
*Structures have to be declared in their own file.
*Assigning structures to sequences and vice-versa is non-transparent
*You can't just go myStruct.name = "Jiminy" like other languages (and that's
what users expect)
*dynamic includes and separate issues they create just for a dinky little
structure functionality
*Need to write files just to use a structure.
*How do you do arrays of structures? Transparently - no function overhead?
Kat, I think your approach may work properly, but it is very difficult to
make sense of, and it differs majorly from how people expect.
>The same applies to executing strings, it's only diff is how Eu would
>handle a
>dynamic include vs a exec(string). Obviously, there'd be a difference in
>syntax as you'd code the access to the vars.
Executing strings is a completely different issue. I think we should keep as
many things de-coupled as possible ('of', strings, structures, threads,
string execution, etc)
MrTrick
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
