From: Colin A. <col...@go...> - 2008-05-18 07:09:58
|
I've had a change of heart on this. I've just created READABLE_STRING, as an ancestor of STRING_GENERAL. I've put this into the Gobo version of Free_ELKS, and done test_debug_ge in $GOBO/test. All tests pass. I then did the same thing for ISE 6.2.7.3489, and it looks like all the tests for that will pass to. So later today, I will post these amended classes to the Free ELKS list, (after patching my current efforts towards ST_STRING with the changes, and checking the tests for that pass too), and if they are accepted, then we can have make_from_readable_string instead. 2008/5/17 Colin Adams <col...@go...>: > 2008/4/29 Colin Adams <col...@go...>: >> On 21/04/2008, Eric Bezault <er...@go...> wrote: >> >>> After looking at class UC_STRING, I'm wondering whether we should >>> just adapt the routines `make_from_string' and `make_from_substring' >>> so that we can pass a STRING_GENERAL. Perhaps we will have to >>> rename the version of `make_from_string' inherited from STRING. >>> Or add `make_from_string_general', `make_from_substring_general', >>> make `make_from_substring' obsolete (make it call >>> `make_from_substring_general') and modify `make_from_string' >>> to call `make_from_string_general'. I'm not sure what the best >>> naming convention is. >> >> I think the last suggestion (adding make_from_string_general and >> changing make_from_string to call make_from_string_general, etc.) is >> best. >> > > Shall we do this then? > > I've just this minute encountered the need for it. > |