:)... a demain, alors :)
2010/9/17 Fabián Flores Vadell :
> 2010/9/17 Fabien Bodard :
>> Yes the next version seems to promise good thing ... I hope Benoit
>> keeping up to date list of various stated wishes.
>>
>> Gambas already allows for a simplified approach to programming with
>> all its tool
2010/9/17 Fabien Bodard :
> Yes the next version seems to promise good thing ... I hope Benoit
> keeping up to date list of various stated wishes.
>
> Gambas already allows for a simplified approach to programming with
> all its tools. But then these tools will also enable the optimization
> of pro
2010/9/17 Caveat :
> This has given me a headache... we'll see in the next version (?)
Yes the next version seems to promise good thing ... I hope Benoit
keeping up to date list of various stated wishes.
Gambas already allows for a simplified approach to programming with
all its tools. But then t
Z means set of integers...
Jussi
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 09:33, Rolf-Werner Eilert
wrote:
>>>
>>> http://old.nabble.com/Ideas4Gambas-to28782834.html
>>
>
> What does the "Z" stand for?
>
> A = {Z; x > -3; x < 5} =~ {-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4}
>
> Just because I'm interested in the syntax ;-)
>
> Regard
it reminds me, a wish for array in _gambas:
dim aSt as string[] = ["titi", "toto","tata"]
dim adf as string = ["titi", "tata"]
Print aSt.Diff(adf).Join
-->result :
$toto
--
Start uncovering the many advantages of v
This has given me a headache... we'll see in the next version (?)
:-)
On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 18:47 +0200, Rolf Schmidt wrote:
> Hi Fabien Bodard:
>
> > la j'ai mal a la tête maintenant ... on véra ça a la prochiane version
> > ... to have english version ... try google ;)
>
> What google transla
now, I got a headache now
2010/9/17 Rolf Schmidt :
> Hi Fabien Bodard:
>
>> la j'ai mal a la tête maintenant ... on véra ça a la prochiane version
>> ... to have english version ... try google ;)
>
> What google translate makes no sense for me neither in english nor in german!
>
> Rolf
>
> --
Hi Fabien Bodard:
> la j'ai mal a la tête maintenant ... on véra ça a la prochiane version
> ... to have english version ... try google ;)
What google translate makes no sense for me neither in english nor in german!
Rolf
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Fabián Flores Vadell ha scritto:
> I understand encapsulation in reference to OOP in this way:
>
> Encapsulation mean hide state "and" behavior. That implies existence
> of an interface and an implementation separates. But not in reference
> to procedures or functions, but to classes.
I don't see
2010/9/17 Doriano Blengino :
>> You mistakenly thought than I meant that "INTERFACE" and
>> "IMPLEMENTATION" keywords should work as they do in Pascal. But I'm
>> don't saying that. Nothing about that there's in the example I wrote.
>>
>> There's no need to double typing.
>>
> Sorry for insisting,
la j'ai mal a la tête maintenant ... on véra ça a la prochiane version
... to have english version ... try google ;)
--
Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
and start using them to simplify applicatio
2010/9/17 Doriano Blengino :
> Fabián Flores Vadell ha scritto:
>> 2010/9/16 Doriano Blengino :
>>
>> Ok. Now I can understand you.
>>
>> You mistakenly thought than I meant that "INTERFACE" and
>> "IMPLEMENTATION" keywords should work as they do in Pascal. But I'm
>> don't saying that. Nothing abo
2010/9/16 Benoît Minisini :
> I agree with the word "method," but "public" and "private" comes from the OOP
> world too.
I don' think so. Seems to me that PUBLIC and PRIVATE comes from the
implementation of OOP in languages that want keep back compatibility.
Anyway, the problem is that these two k
2010/9/17 Rolf-Werner Eilert :
> I think this could lead to misunderstanding if you keep the BASIC
> concept of "free" indention:
>
>> But if you want less keywords, you can do:
>>
>> PUBLIC '(a.k.a. Interface)
>> Age AS Byte
>>
>> setAge(Value AS Byte)
>> IF Value>= MinAge AND Value<= M
> Am 17.09.2010 11:59, schrieb Benoît Minisini:
> >> But if you really want to get rid of something useless, why not change
> >> SELECT CASE into SELECT? I don't know the history of this keyword, but
> >> it smells like it was planned to allow for further combinations.
> >> However, nobody ever imp
Am 17.09.2010 11:59, schrieb Benoît Minisini:
>>
>> But if you really want to get rid of something useless, why not change
>> SELECT CASE into SELECT? I don't know the history of this keyword, but
>> it smells like it was planned to allow for further combinations.
>> However, nobody ever implemente
>
> But if you really want to get rid of something useless, why not change
> SELECT CASE into SELECT? I don't know the history of this keyword, but
> it smells like it was planned to allow for further combinations.
> However, nobody ever implemented them, and it stayed as it was. If we
> don't rev
Fabián Flores Vadell ha scritto:
> 2010/9/16 Doriano Blengino:
>
>> Ok, I will argue about it. From what I understand, the paradigm you
>> describe looks similar to pascal (and C++): an interface section
>> declares all the public symbols, which will be detailed (implemented)
>> later. So every
I think this could lead to misunderstanding if you keep the BASIC
concept of "free" indention:
> But if you want less keywords, you can do:
>
> PUBLIC '(a.k.a. Interface)
>Age AS Byte
>
>setAge(Value AS Byte)
> IF Value>= MinAge AND Value<= MaxAge THEN Age = Value
>END
>
> Becaus
>>
>> http://old.nabble.com/Ideas4Gambas-to28782834.html
>
What does the "Z" stand for?
A = {Z; x > -3; x < 5} =~ {-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4}
Just because I'm interested in the syntax ;-)
Regards
Rolf
--
Start uncovering the
Fabián Flores Vadell ha scritto:
> 2010/9/16 Doriano Blengino :
>
>> Ok, I will argue about it. From what I understand, the paradigm you
>> describe looks similar to pascal (and C++): an interface section
>> declares all the public symbols, which will be detailed (implemented)
>> later. So every
> >
> > I mean that declaring a public variable with PUBLIC or with ATTRIBUTE is
> > always declaring a public variable, with another keyword.
>
> But keyword have a meaning. Words are the starting point for reasoning
> about something.
>
> For example, the keyword PUBLIC refers to the scope of
2010/9/16 Benoît Minisini :
>> > So, replacing one word (for example PUBLIC) by another (ATTRIBUTE),
>> > whereas the implementation is the same behind is not a good idea,
>> > because then this is not BASIC anymore.
>>
>> I'm never said that PUBLIC would be replaced by ATTRIBUTE. That have no
>> s
Hi to all,
Am Freitag, den 17.09.2010, 00:06 +0200 schrieb Benoît Minisini:
> > 2010/9/16 Benoît Minisini :
> > > (1) First, you must realize that the syntax is not the implementation. In
> > > a more general way, the word is not the thing. We are confused by that
> > > all the life. :-)
> >
>
> 2010/9/16 Benoît Minisini :
> > (1) First, you must realize that the syntax is not the implementation. In
> > a more general way, the word is not the thing. We are confused by that
> > all the life. :-)
>
> What are you talking about?
That, for me, the implementation, i.e. the internals of the
2010/9/16 Benoît Minisini :
> (1) First, you must realize that the syntax is not the implementation. In a
> more general way, the word is not the thing. We are confused by that all the
> life. :-)
What are you talking about?
> So, replacing one word (for example PUBLIC) by another (ATTRIBUTE), w
2010/9/16 Doriano Blengino :
> Ok, I will argue about it. From what I understand, the paradigm you
> describe looks similar to pascal (and C++): an interface section
> declares all the public symbols, which will be detailed (implemented)
> later. So every method declaration must be written twice, i
>
> 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), o
> Hi Benoît. Below I expose some suggestions for new and alternative
> keywords.
>
> PUBLIC and PRIVATE keywords defines the scope for attributes and
> methods, but this words come from (or evokes) modular/structured
> programming. Because PUBLIC methods and attributes (and properties)
> define th
Fabián Flores Vadell ha scritto:
>
>> Your proposal resembles the syntax of pascal - I like pascal, and use it
>> a lot; but the biggest annoyance of pascal is this double declaration in
>> interface and implementation: very clean and very logical - for a
>> compiler from 1970.
>>
>
> Oh! Lisp
> A very important advantage, was not emphasized enough: keywords closer
> to OOP help very much to teaching an OOP language, because them are
> closely related to the OOP concepts.
>
true !
--
Start uncovering the many ad
2010/9/15 Fabián Flores Vadell :
> 2010/9/15 Fabien Bodard :
>> 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 (bu
2010/9/15 Doriano Blengino :
> Probably with "you" you mean Benoit and not me, anyway...
I'm sorry. I thought about sending it to Benoit, but I wrote the user
list address. But, this way may well be better.
> Your proposal resembles the syntax of pascal - I like pascal, and use it
> a lot; but th
2010/9/15 Fabien Bodard :
> 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 impleme
Fabián Flores Vadell ha scritto:
> Hi Benoît. Below I expose some suggestions for new and alternative keywords.
>
> PUBLIC and PRIVATE keywords defines the scope for attributes and
> methods, but this words come from (or evokes) modular/structured
> programming. Because PUBLIC methods and attribute
But i'm not Benoit ;-)
--
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-sfdev2de
I think for my part , there is two thing bad in your idea...
- it is not more short than the current implementation .
- it not respect the Procedure syntax (but can be sympatic in the
case of implementation of MACRO)
You say it is more easy to read ... yes ... but you manage only one
case in
Hi Benoît. Below I expose some suggestions for new and alternative keywords.
PUBLIC and PRIVATE keywords defines the scope for attributes and
methods, but this words come from (or evokes) modular/structured
programming. Because PUBLIC methods and attributes (and properties)
define the interface fo
38 matches
Mail list logo
