1. Re: Namespace improvement ?
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:07:01 +0000, Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net> wrote:
> I agree with George's analogy also. Well put George.
> Unfortunately, the issue is not what the problem is, but how to resolve
> it.
>
> Did you know that this issue has been raised since early in 1999?
>
> If we, as users of Euphoria can't even agree on how to address the
> problem, I wouldn't expect Rob to assert his veto-power and 'do what's
> best for us'. We've all seen the outcome of that.
>
> Until Rob decides to establish some structured support and development
> practices that *includes* the participation of Euphoria's users, we are
> doomed to quarrel about things that will never be resolved.
Rob, how about setting up a forum for each issue like this, that may
merit community discussion? We know you're omnipotent and all-knowing
and everything, but it could be a useful source of inspiration for
language enhancements.
> The only alternative and successfull method I know of, is if someone
> does it themselves, Rob likes it, and implements it officially.
> ( A la Matt Lewis )
It seems to me that it wouldn't be too involved... all you'd need to
do is juggle the symbol tables around differently, changing the way
things are scoped and descoped...
And last but not least, how about an explicit scoping mechanism?
Similar to the way namespacing and includes work, but defined inside
the file:
scope example
integer x
sequence data
function doStuff()
return data+x
end function
end scope
example:x = 1
example:data = {4,5,1,3,5}
? example:doStuff()
It'd make managing the global namespace a lot easier...
--
MrTrick
