1. Universal Namespace Clearinghouse
Hi All,
I agree with Irv. In my opinion, a Universal Namespace=
Clearinghouse
seems more feasible. By implementing this, it will eliminate all=
the
headaches. But the question is, who will implement it? I would=
be
more than happy to have some space setup on the Insight Concepts=
site
to host this, but as Euphoria grows, this will be a major task to=
keep this type of Database up to date. Also, will our fellow
Euphorians take the time to visit the Clearinghouse when working=
on a
project?
Chris
2. Re: Universal Namespace Clearinghouse
----- Original Message -----
From: <president at insight-concepts.com>
Subject: Universal Namespace Clearinghouse
Hi All,
I agree with Irv. In my opinion, a Universal Namespace Clearinghouse
seems more feasible. By implementing this, it will eliminate all the
headaches. But the question is, who will implement it? I would be
more than happy to have some space setup on the Insight Concepts site
to host this, but as Euphoria grows, this will be a major task to
keep this type of Database up to date. Also, will our fellow
Euphorians take the time to visit the Clearinghouse when working on a
project?
You say this with tongue firmly planted in cheek, I trust?
Regards,
Irv
3. Re: Universal Namespace Clearinghouse
<You say this with tongue firmly planted in cheek, I trust?>
I did not understand your comment............Can explain?
But if your asking if Insight Concepts will be interested in=
setting
up the Clearinghouse, sure..........
If everyone would agree that this is the way to go, then it can=
be
developed and running before the end of July..................=
That
is not the problem. My concerns are....
Will it be utilized............
Chris
4. Re: Universal Namespace Clearinghouse
Not by me!
Euman
euman at bellsouth.net
----- Original Message -----
From: <president at insight-concepts.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: Re: Universal Namespace Clearinghouse
<You say this with tongue firmly planted in cheek, I trust?>
I did not understand your comment............Can explain?
But if your asking if Insight Concepts will be interested in setting
up the Clearinghouse, sure..........
If everyone would agree that this is the way to go, then it can be
developed and running before the end of July.................. That
is not the problem. My concerns are....
Will it be utilized............
Chris
5. Re: Universal Namespace Clearinghouse
----- Original Message -----
From: <president at insight-concepts.com>
Subject: Re: Universal Namespace Clearinghouse
<You say this with tongue firmly planted in cheek, I trust?>
I did not understand your comment............Can explain?
Surely you are joking - I certainly was. A "clearinghouse"
won't work. The idea just barely works in a large COBOL
shop where people are well-paid to cooperate, and the compiler
enforces those sorts of things. There's exactly zero chance of it working
in the real world. Besides, as explained in my earlier post,
and Travis alluded to also, having namespaces fixed into
include files just delays the inevitable.
Suppose I create an include file which is useful, and everybody
wants to use it. I create it as namespace 'win', and send it to RDS.
Maybe I shroud it first. It automatically conflicts with
Win32Lib, and there isn't any way to change my code.
No one is going to change Win32Lib's namespace,
because then all programs that depend upon that will break.
Even if you were willing and able to change the namespace of my
library, how would you know that doing so wouldn't
break all other libraries and programs that might depend upon it?
Including programs you wrote yesterday, before you modified
the namespace?
See the problem? We'd be right back where we started.
The only workable solution is to name the space at the
time it is imported, with a name that would be meaningful only within the
scope of that one file. If other files also import the same library, they
are free to rename it however they wish, and there will be no conflicts.
Regards,
Irv
6. Re: Universal Namespace Clearinghouse
- Posted by gertie at ad-tek.net
Jun 22, 2001
On 23 Jun 2001, at 0:21, Irv Mullins wrote:
<snip>
> The only workable solution is to name the space at the
> time it is imported, with a name that would be meaningful only within the
> scope of that one file. If other files also import the same library, they
> are free to rename it however they wish, and there will be no conflicts.
I believe that is the key to the whole mess, the *local* include name. If you
wish to
make global your local name for a included renamed procedure, you'd just haveto
make a global procedure of a similar name. Or,,, to pass on the renamed include
file's functions.....
global include win32lib as win
Kat
7. Re: Universal Namespace Clearinghouse
I agree. Having include files declare their own namespace is a bad idea.
It should be left up to the file that is including it.
There is no real difference between:
win.openWindow(window, style)
and
win_openWindow(window, style)
if win32lib makes its own namespace for all its routines. The first example
is with a renamed namespace, the second example just has every procedure,
function, constant and variable in win32lib renamed. The second example can
be done in the current version of Eu if someone would rename all the
routines in win32lib. But it doesn't solve anything.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <president at insight-concepts.com>
>
>Subject: Re: Universal Namespace Clearinghouse
>
><You say this with tongue firmly planted in cheek, I trust?>
>
>I did not understand your comment............Can explain?
>
>Surely you are joking - I certainly was. A "clearinghouse"
>won't work. The idea just barely works in a large COBOL
>shop where people are well-paid to cooperate, and the compiler
>enforces those sorts of things. There's exactly zero chance of it working
>in the real world. Besides, as explained in my earlier post,
>and Travis alluded to also, having namespaces fixed into
>include files just delays the inevitable.
>
>Suppose I create an include file which is useful, and everybody
>wants to use it. I create it as namespace 'win', and send it to RDS.
>Maybe I shroud it first. It automatically conflicts with
>Win32Lib, and there isn't any way to change my code.
>
>No one is going to change Win32Lib's namespace,
>because then all programs that depend upon that will break.
>
>Even if you were willing and able to change the namespace of my
>library, how would you know that doing so wouldn't
>break all other libraries and programs that might depend upon it?
>Including programs you wrote yesterday, before you modified
>the namespace?
>
>See the problem? We'd be right back where we started.
>The only workable solution is to name the space at the
>time it is imported, with a name that would be meaningful only within the
>scope of that one file. If other files also import the same library, they
>are free to rename it however they wish, and there will be no conflicts.
>
>Regards,
>Irv
