Hi Kiste, > I believe the flaw in format.jal is that it is not being discussed in detail > recently ;-) Stef made a pretty usefull library at the time, but it has some flaws and inconsistensies. In the first year of jallib, many libraries were refactored, but format.jal was such a taks that I decided to leave it at the time and create the more elementary print.jal. Last year or so there where some complaints and I worked on the library for some time, but the result was never assesed due to the lack of 'discussion in detail' as you call it. And since I have no strong opinion on this lib and the complaints (I don't use it), I redraw the modification. I guess when 'somebody' stands up and start working on format.jal, it would be worth while to dig into svn to look at my modifications.
> I proposed the column-arrangement because I don't see a use for the > print_array procedures without that. You could be right, but I guess Matt has an opinion about this too... > But if print.jal is only for unformatted output, I think both the > fixed-point and the print_array do not belong there, but in format.jal. Well, an other reason for refactoring format.jal. It is probably quite a job to do so, but the result will be rewarding since there is much to improve :) Joep -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
