[Gambas-user] Suggestions 4 new keywords

[Fabien Bodard]

2010/9/15 Fabián Flores Vadell <fabianfloresvadell at ...626...>:
> 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 an alternative case ... maybe... but not for complex things

>> 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.
Good collection :). I don't say you to return to M$ (my english is
really bad you know ?)
But in basic

>
> 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?
i think no ... but i'm not the one that should do that ... wait for Benoit :)
>
> And you don't should forget that I'm proposing that syntax as
> alternative (optional).
I remember that ... don't worry
>
>
> Regards.
> --
> Fabián Flores Vadell
> www.speedbooksargentina.blogspot.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
> and start using them to simplify application deployment and
> accelerate your shift to cloud computing.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Gambas-user mailing list
> Gambas-user at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-user
>


Hum many sugars are possible in gambas ... but i'm ot the master ...
wait for Benoit ... i'm just a slave ... a poor slave... :P


I've query some things too :

For each type in array  must return only object of type 'Type'

why not "MyString".Len() ? or MyStringVar.Mid(2,1), or myString.Instr("v",3)

why not declare the var on need ?

(String)MyString = i + 2

(String[])aValue = ["titi", "toto"]


:)

Many things are possible ... but we need to finish this version before
change all a new time ... and i think benoit will be agree with that.

I think he have already a big todo list for next version.

-- 
Fabien Bodard