On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 10:44 PM, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Yep. Sigh. This is all quite frustrating, because everyone has different ideas on what's valuable enough to be a builtin, but it's the design team that finalizes that, and the information is sort of scattered piecemeal through the A's/E's/p6l. If you look around enough, there's a pile of builtin stuff that's obliquely referred to, but never quite spelled out. And even the simplest ones -- what "default" means, for example -- aren't necessarily obvious at first glance.Michael Lazzaro wrote:If you want such 'is computed' thingy, then tie it or wrap it in your own - IMHO. Everyone seems to need different things, so the simplest and by far the safest way is to make this explicit in your code.In general, I would hope that 90% of them would be, but it's been stated that it won't be a requirement.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Shouldn't access to 'is computed' arrays be read-only?
All I want is a list of what the already-known builtins *are*, or what other things people *demand* should be there, and the gist of what they do. Even if I have to change it later. Even if they're not in core, but they're things that people are going to immediately build because they're so obvious. Something to make me feel that the precise behaviors have really been pinned down -- and can be reliably extrapolated from -- preferably *before* people spend a lot of time coding them.
Lord, this is just *arrays*. Not even *hashes*, yet...
So, is it obvious that I'm a little discouraged lately? Don't suppose anyone can come up with some numbingly inspirational words to cheer us (well, me) up...
MikeL
