OpenEuphoria

Re: Multiple includes (was: Rob's going to hate me... (Remainder bug))

• Posted by Irv Mullins <irvm at ellijay.com> Nov 10, 2003
• 576 views

On Monday 10 November 2003 12:12 pm, you wrote:
>
> Hello there Irv,
>
> Dont get me wrong, i like your idea too, but you have to
> remember there is code out there written by someone who
> likes to use the alias feature, where you can use two
> different namespace prefixes with the same file:
>
> include MyFile.e as MF
> include MyFile.e as MyFile
>
> and now you can use either MF or MyFile to
> access data in MyFile.e .

So, when reading your code, I see a reference to MF:x = 2, and 
elsewhere one to  MyFile:x = 3. 
What is there to indicate that they are both addressing the 
same variable? And, if you used MF because it was shorter/easier to type,
why didn't you use it throughout the code? Got tired of typing the long 
form, and changed in midstream? 
No thanks, I have enough trouble keeping up with variables without them 
masquerading as something else part of the time.
This goes so against Rob's philosophy that I'm amazed he allows it. 
I also doubt that anyone has used it much, because programming is 
confusing enough already. 

> This 'feature' cant be lost just because something else
> is added, can it?

Sure, especially because it's not a feature (except in the Microsoft sense).
It's a bug. Bugs can be tossed out anytime. If there's some way that aliases 
for variables might actually be useful, then an 'alias' keyword should be 
added.

> Personally i have only used this once i think, but
> there is also this to think about(which i've used a
> few times already):
>
> --all same file..."Colors.ew"
> include Colors.ew as Colors
> constant Blue=Colors:GetBlue()
>
> This works fine right now, so i should think it should still
> work the same after the change.

I suppose it would. Is this the same as local:GetBlue() would be in some other 
languages? Meaningless except to clarify the code?

Irv