1. Another namespace addition for 4.0?
- Posted by Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy at cow?ar.co?> Apr 25, 2008
- 685 views
Matt, Would it be useful/possible to be able to declare a namespace in the actual include file? Here's what I am thinking, please let me know what you think. I cannot imagine it would be too hard, but I could be wrong. ==== datetime.e
namespace dt global function new(integer year, ....) end function
==== myprog.ex
include datetime.e datetime dt1 dt1 = dt:new(....)
Or, if a user wished, they could override the namespace: ==== myprog2.ex
include datetime.e as datetime datetime dt1 dt1 = datetime:new(....)
-- Jeremy Cowgar http://jeremy.cowgar.com
2. Re: Another namespace addition for 4.0?
- Posted by CChris <christian.cuvier at ag??culture.gouv.fr> Apr 25, 2008
- 657 views
Jeremy Cowgar wrote: > > Matt, > > Would it be useful/possible to be able to declare a namespace in the actual > include file? Here's what I am thinking, please let me know what you think. > I cannot imagine it would be too hard, but I could be wrong. > > ==== datetime.e > }}} <eucode> > namespace dt > > global function new(integer year, ....) > end function > </eucode> {{{ > > ==== myprog.ex > }}} <eucode> > include datetime.e > > datetime dt1 > dt1 = dt:new(....) > </eucode> {{{ > > Or, if a user wished, they could override the namespace: > > ==== myprog2.ex > }}} <eucode> > include datetime.e as datetime > > datetime dt1 > dt1 = datetime:new(....) > </eucode> {{{ > > -- > Jeremy Cowgar > <a href="http://jeremy.cowgar.com">http://jeremy.cowgar.com</a> This looks like a crude definition of a package. I'm 100% for it, have it implemented in Æ and there has been much discussion last year about it... CChris
3. Re: Another namespace addition for 4.0?
- Posted by yuku <yuku at ikitek?c?m> Apr 25, 2008
- 646 views
CChris wrote: > This looks like a crude definition of a package. I'm 100% for it, have it > implemented > in � and there has been much discussion last year about it... My 1e-2 cents: I hate looking at ":" for the namespace specifier. It looks unclean (not easily distinguisable from a letter), hard to type, and not common. "_" is much cleaner... Any reason why didn't we use . instead of : ?
4. Re: Another namespace addition for 4.0?
- Posted by Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy at ?o?gar.com> Apr 25, 2008
- 636 views
yuku wrote: > > CChris wrote: > > This looks like a crude definition of a package. I'm 100% for it, have it > > implemented > > in � and there has been much discussion last year about it... > > My 1e-2 cents: > > I hate looking at ":" for the namespace specifier. > It looks unclean (not easily distinguisable from a letter), > hard to type, and not common. "_" is much cleaner... > > Any reason why didn't we use . instead of : ? Not to get picky, but . is easier to look at, distinguish and type. I've had problems with my hands in the past and it's due mainly to the pinky reaching for the shift key. However, I have gotten over that, I use a foot pedal now and a true split keyboard (1/2's are separated by about 5 inches). The foot pedal works Alt, Ctrl and Shift. But, something to think about. -- Jeremy Cowgar http://jeremy.cowgar.com
5. Re: Another namespace addition for 4.0?
- Posted by CChris <christian.cuvier at a?riculture.gouv.fr> Apr 25, 2008
- 661 views
yuku wrote: > > CChris wrote: > > This looks like a crude definition of a package. I'm 100% for it, have it > > implemented > > in � and there has been much discussion last year about it... > > My 1e-2 cents: > > I hate looking at ":" for the namespace specifier. > It looks unclean (not easily distinguisable from a letter), > hard to type, and not common. "_" is much cleaner... > > Any reason why didn't we use . instead of : ? The "hard to type" part is not true on non US keyboards. For instance, the french keyboard has a key (above Right Alt) that gives : unshifted and / shifted. Don't you have to shift - to access _? Not common: :: is more usual, granted. But : is simpler than ::, right? . smacks of object oriented programming, and you know the baleful fate of heretics to the dogma of procedural programming here... I'm among those heretics. Further, since _ is a valid inner character for identifiers, it would not be clear whether a given _ denotes a namespace or simply separates words. So I'd consider : as not bad. Perhaps @ could be better, although it would be more natural then to write <symbol> at <namespace>. CChris
6. Re: Another namespace addition for 4.0?
- Posted by yuku <yuku at ikite?.?om> Apr 25, 2008
- 671 views
CChris wrote: > Not common: :: is more usual, granted. But : is simpler than ::, right? Somehow :: separates words more obviously than :. Compare datetime::add(a, b) datetime::to_unix(a) with datetime:add(a, b) datetime:to_unix(a) even so, still not as intuitive as datetime.add(a, b) datetime.to_unix(a) > . smacks of object oriented programming, and you know the baleful fate of > heretics > to the dogma of procedural programming here... I'm among those heretics. Do you mean that it will confuse people with OOP background? > Further, since _ is a valid inner character for identifiers, it would not be > clear whether a given _ denotes a namespace or simply separates words. I should have said "*Even* \"_\" is much cleaner...", I didn't mean namespace but using prefixes :P > So I'd consider : as not bad. Perhaps @ could be better, although it would be > more > natural then to write <symbol> at <namespace>. Let's imagine more extremely.. how about this
import datetime.e as dt datetime dt1, dt2 dt1 = dt new(1999, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) dt2 = dt add(dt1, 2, MINUTES) puts(1, dt format(dt2, "%Y-%m-%d"))
7. Re: Another namespace addition for 4.0?
- Posted by Jeremy Cowgar <jeremy at cowg??.com> Apr 25, 2008
- 644 views
I started a new thread for . or : or ???? Can we please continue this discussion there and leave this thread for the discussion of the idea: === datetime.e
namespace dt global function abc() --- ...
=== myprog.e
include datetime.e dt:abc()
The new thread is: http://www.openeuphoria.org/EUforum/m19984.html Thanks. -- Jeremy Cowgar http://jeremy.cowgar.com
8. Re: Another namespace addition for 4.0?
- Posted by c.k.lester <euphoric at ckl??ter.com> Apr 25, 2008
- 659 views
- Last edited Apr 26, 2008
CChris wrote: > . smacks of object oriented programming, and you know the baleful fate of > heretics > to the dogma of procedural programming here... I'm among those heretics. I like the way the . looks better than the :, so I would vote for the .. It doesn't have to mean object-oriented. But my IDE is very handy for when I start typing include datetime.e as dt my_var = dt. and a drop-down list pops up of available datetime functions. That's cool. Or would be. Could be.
9. Re: Another namespace addition for 4.0?
- Posted by "Euler German" <eulerg at gmail.com> Apr 25, 2008
- 671 views
- Last edited Apr 26, 2008
> On 25 Apr 2008 at 11:15, CChris wrote (maybe snipped): > > > posted by: CChris <christian.cuvier at a?riculture.gouv.fr> > -<snip>- > So I'd consider : as not bad. Perhaps @ could be better, although it > would be more natural then to write <symbol> at <namespace>. > I was about to suggest that "@" but then realize it's even worse than ":" to type in. I liked the dot idea but it's a common specifier for OO bound languages. So, my vote goes to the colon if we can't take the dot. ;^) Best, Euler -- _ _| euler f german _| sete lagoas, mg, brazil _| efgerman{AT}gmail{DOT}com _| ----------------------------- _| Reply preferably to the list, _| or to the address above. Thx!
10. Re: Another namespace addition for 4.0?
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at g?a?l.com> Apr 26, 2008
- 639 views
Jeremy Cowgar wrote: > > Matt, > > Would it be useful/possible to be able to declare a namespace in the actual > include file? Here's what I am thinking, please let me know what you think. > I cannot imagine it would be too hard, but I could be wrong. I think that's an interesting idea. Basically, a default. Matt
11. Re: Another namespace addition for 4.0?
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at g?ai?.com> Apr 26, 2008
- 672 views
yuku wrote: > > CChris wrote: > > This looks like a crude definition of a package. I'm 100% for it, have it > > implemented > > in � and there has been much discussion last year about it... > > My 1e-2 cents: > > I hate looking at ":" for the namespace specifier. > It looks unclean (not easily distinguisable from a letter), > hard to type, and not common. "_" is much cleaner... > > Any reason why didn't we use . instead of : ? I'd prefer ':'. It's more obvious. Matt
12. Re: Another namespace addition for 4.0?
- Posted by c.k.lester <euphoric at ckles??r.com> Apr 26, 2008
- 650 views
Matt Lewis wrote: > > I'd prefer ':'. It's more obvious. I have to use VBA quite a bit where I work, so the . is beautiful to me. :)
13. Re: Another namespace addition for 4.0?
- Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at y?hoo.com> Apr 26, 2008
- 640 views
Matt Lewis wrote: > > Jeremy Cowgar wrote: > > > > Matt, > > > > Would it be useful/possible to be able to declare a namespace in the actual > > include file? Here's what I am thinking, please let me know what you think. > > I cannot imagine it would be too hard, but I could be wrong. > > I think that's an interesting idea. Basically, a default. > > Matt Yeah, that's kind of the way that I saw it too. An overridable default. -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works. --John Gall's 15th law of Systemantics. "Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming." --C.A.R. Hoare j.
14. Re: Another namespace addition for 4.0?
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at g?ai?.com> Apr 26, 2008
- 660 views
c.k.lester wrote: > > Matt Lewis wrote: > > > > I'd prefer ':'. It's more obvious. > > I have to use VBA quite a bit where I work, so the . is beautiful to me. :) My condolences. Matt