1. Re: More Namespace
- Posted by nieuwen at XS4ALL.NL
Oct 03, 1999
> You have include file.e naturally makes it global.
> however we could confine it with local.
Yes, yes, with the advantage of 100 full backwards compatibility.
I quote the file basic.doc (xxx reasons for basic programmers).
-- Because basic is an old ad-hoc language carrying 25 years of redundant
baggage
Here's an interesting question, what in the world, is the use of a normal
'include' statement,
when you are able to 'include it locally' .. it is cleaner, neater, etc. The one
huge global
junkyard namespace should end as soon as possible, before projects of enormous
length
(currently not possible with Euphoria because of this same issue) are dependent
upon this
rules.
About 'fixing' the files, Euphoria could even suggest to 'fix' the file, and put
an include
statement within the 'broken' file, because thats all that the file needs.
Euphoria finds the
routines, but the current include file does not have acces to them: so it
suggest to insert an
include statement. Or just issue a warning, rather than stopping the program.
Locally has
preference over the global junkjard, and using the global junkjard generates an
warning.
Nobody has to fix their programs, they can leave them broken.
Big deal, too much fuss.
Just don't wait too long, before some one starts writing another great language,
annoyed by
the excess bagage of evolution of Euphoria. Seriously, the current state and
size of the
Euphoria community should motivate Robert to alter the language more seriously,
rather than
stop him. Plus, people can always use the old version, for the few
old-school-style programs.
In other words, Robert, if it's up to me, any future improvements that break my
code are
welcome, gives me something to do again as well 
Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen
[[ Email ]]
nieuwen at xs4all.nl
ralf_n at email.com
[[ I-Seek-You ]]
UIN: 9389920
[[ The Elevator ]]
http://www.xs4all.nl/~nieuwen
