[Gambas-user] Suggestions 4 new keywords

[Fabián Flores Vadell]

2010/9/15 Fabien Bodard <gambas.fr at ...626...>:
> I think for my part , there is two thing bad in your idea...
>  - it is not more short than the current implementation .

Yes, it is. Just count the number of lines, not the comments.

>  - it not respect the Procedure syntax (but can be sympatic in the
> case of implementation of MACRO)

That is the case and I tried to explain on my previous message: why
OOP should be tied to procedure syntax? Just for back compatibility.
Why we can't have in Gambas an alternative syntax more closer to OOP?

May be I'm not doing a touché with my proposal. But I'm not an expert,
I just want to explain my ideas.

>  You say it is more easy to read ... yes ... but you manage only one
> case in the validation ... imagine managing mutiple validation for one
> entry ... it will be less clear.

I can imagine many different ways to try to do that, keeping simple. Example:

   VALIDATE WHEN WRITE Age >= MinAge AND Age <= Max Age

or

   VALIDATE WHEN WRITE
      Age >= MinAge
      Age <= Max Age;

or

   VALIDATE WHEN WRITE (Age >= MinAge AND Age <= Max Age)


> In fact my question will be what is not clear for you in the Gambas Code ...

I don't propose this changes because something is not clear for me,
but because I think these can be usefull.


> To finish ... programming in not easy ... gambas is not a one thing
> langage and must to be able to do near to everything (just it miss
> some velocity ... it's an interpreted langage) so it need to learn a
> little bit about what is aroud the langage and about généric
> programmation. A C++ program is more explicit ... but users go to
> Basic because of these simplification.... You can try C# or Basic.net
> :)
> and i'm not sure they are more simple.

You goes out of the topic. I'm not interested to return to programming
in MS platform. I know Pascal, VB, Delphi, a bit Assembly, Lisp, shell
script, from times on university, and thereafter: php, OOoBasic, a bit
Java, a bit .Net, a bit Haskell.

My point is that I'm not searching for a programming language. But I
saw quite "OOP" syntax derivated from structured programming.

But about user than go to BASIC because of these simplification,
that's the motivation of my proposal.

> Nevertheless... Gambas language will not change for this time, gb4...
> in ... 3-4 year will be another thing.

Why? You forgot answer to the key question:

 * Is difficult to implement?

And you don't should forget that I'm proposing that syntax as
alternative (optional).


Regards.
-- 
Fabián Flores Vadell
www.speedbooksargentina.blogspot.com