1. Re: More Namespace
- Posted by David Cuny <dcuny at LANSET.COM>
Oct 01, 1999
-
Last edited Oct 02, 1999
I agree that there should be a namespace modifier. I was thinking of
something like 'friend' or 'module'.
Here's one use of 'friend': you have a library that's a single file, and
you'd like to break it up into parts. Writing:
include friend <module name>
tells Euphoria that the routines are shared, but are not global.
Here's another example: Let's say that I wanted to use Neil in my library. I
could write:
include friend neil.e
And Neil would be visible to my library, but not to the routines that are
using my library. If I wanted the Neil routines to be global, I would write:
include global neil.e
and all the routines declared as global in Neil would really be global.
Under this kind of setup, the keyword 'global' should really be replaced
with 'export' - it defines the interface to the library routines, but it's
up to the include routine to decide if the routines are global or local to
the module.
-- David Cuny
