[E-Lang] Syntax change: reducing side-effects
Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:12:40 -0700
I do not believe that Dean's proposal would interfere with your development
style, though I will let dean and markm address your concerns directly.
I sometimes work in a fashion similar to yours, though with different tools.
If you have seen the EBrowser that markm ships with the E distribution, that
is the smaller, simpler, earlier version of the EBrowser development
environment I use today.
Among the enhancements in the "current" version of EBrowser, it includes an
Elmer-based scratchpad. When I come to something that I am not sure will
work (often because it is a call to the Java API whose output is a little
ambiguous), I will write it and exercise it in the scratchpad first, then
cut/paste it into the main program. This is a little clumsier than is really
desireable because I have not yet built a filter to strip out the "?" and
">" prefixes in Elmer executable statements when I paste it. But I think the
idea is the same.
----- Original Message -----
To: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: [E-Lang] Syntax change: reducing side-effects
> Dean Tribble, <email@example.com>, writes:
> > Summary: all defining occurrences of names now default to 'final',
> > they are prefixed by 'var', in which case they are settable. In
> > 'var' can be used as a top-level construct as an alternative to 'define'
> > (equivalent to 'define var').
> This would interfere with the way I have developed some small E programs
> in the past. I would run E in its iteractive mode, and then edit my
> E program in another window using Emacs. Then I copy and paste the
> functions from the Emacs window into the E window. If the function
> doesn't work right, I change it in Emacs and then copy it over again.
> With the proposed convention I gather I'd have to add the "var"
> declaration to all my function names. Then when I had them all working
> the way I wanted I'd have to go through and take all the "var"s out.
> I've always liked interactive development systems that let you work like
> this, going back to APL. You define a function and then try calling
> it from the command line, and when it works you define more complex
> functions that use it. Does anyone else use E this way?
> e-lang mailing list