[V4REV] Constants

[Ruslan Zasukhin]

On 6/20/05 11:53 AM, "Robert Brenstein" <rjb at robelko.com> wrote:

>> In the next letter I will again describe how we going to make constants for
>> next build.
> 
> This is indeed a dilemna and I haven't convinced myself which is better:
> 
> -- only literal constants
> -- only numeric constants
> -- either literal or numeric
> 
> A big plus for using literal constants, and this is why they are used
> in other languages, is that they let Ruslan and his team to change
> their values without breaking our code.

Right, and this was case for move from v1 to v2.
Some constants have change values.

> They are also more mnemonic,
> so stick in memory easier and give visual feedback as to what value
> they represent. 

Again right. And this help as to YOU so to us.

It is very annoying when somebody send me project with numeric constants,
I DO NOT see their sense. I need go into docs and check what they means.
So I lost time.

I believe the same happens on your side when you try read EXISTED code.

> But then, we have to face constructs like "fIndexed + fUnique" (may be we
> should think if it is possible to avoid these by passing multiple flags as
> independent parameters -- the flag parameters would have to become position
> independent and using numeric constants would not be possible).

No, flags as independent - no.
Because after them go more parameters.


Again this also works:  "fIndexed, fUnique"

I think this is VERY in Revolution style, you have list delimited by comas.
Agree? :-)

-- 
Best regards,

Ruslan Zasukhin
VP Engineering and New Technology
Paradigma Software, Inc

Valentina - Joining Worlds of Information
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

[I feel the need: the need for speed]