1. Another namespace addition for 4.0?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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
-
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
-
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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
