Re: Mutable Bytes

>>>>> "Lenard" == Lenard Lindstrom <[email protected]> writes:
Lenard> Byte code is a low level feature that is not considered
Lenard> portable across versions. So it makes sense to discourage
Lenard> direct manipulation of the byte code. If Prothon binary data
Lenard> is made visible within the langauge as byte strings does it
Lenard> make sense to allow direct changes to them?

You can already overload just about anything to your heart's content,
and no-one's stopping you from doing so. I don't see that storing
bytecode in mutable objects increases or decreases anyone's ability to
shoot himself in the foot if he should want, nor do I think that it
would encourage foolish practices. Making Bytes mutable doesn't enable
people to do something they couldn't otherwise do; it just makes it a
little bit less tedious to do so. Moreover, Bytes has a significantly
wider scope of use, I should hope, than merely storing Prothon's own
bytecode. I think that it's more important to look at how the type
would be used in the general case rather than one specific case, even
if that specific case is very important.

Martin

-- 
Homepage:       http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/
GPG public key: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~factotum/gpgkey.txt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkEFfeAACgkQYu1fMmOQldWpSQCcDr7A+EGBYA4wskGvNl8zqH41
risAn38pSHXD5+zMXPyyRLFyfeJVcecK
=ISDw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----