OpenEuphoria

Re: Packages

• Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo.?om> Aug 07, 2007
• 532 views

CChris wrote:
> 
> Jason Gade wrote:
> > 
> > CChris wrote:
> > > 
> > > jacques deschênes wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Your system is too complex, it add a lot of new keywords. Why make it
> > > > complex
> > > > when one can make simple.
> > > 
> > > Because simple systems won't work.
> > > They will create issues of their own, out of short-sightedness.
> > 
> > Surely you're joking?
> > 
> > And in a different thread:
> > 
> > > We seem to live on different planets.
> > 
> > True.
> > 
> 
> I agree. But some aspect of your planet are causing serious trouble to my
> coding.
> 
> > Here's my proposal, one new keyword, but I don't know if it is possible:
> > import <lib> [as <namespace>]
> > 
> > This works just like include but globals included or imported by imported
> > files
> > are no longer visible. It acts as a block to global namespace pollution.
> > 
> > Basically it only imports symbols defined in <lib>, not symbols defined in
> > <lib>'s
> > includes or imported files. Those go... somewhere else.
> > 
> 
> in my_app.exw:
> import my_lib.e
> 
> in my_lib.e
> include get.e
> 
> Can my_app.exw access routines in get.e?
> 
> If so:
> 
> in my_lib.e:
> global function my_func()
> import my_utils.e
> 
> in my_utils.e:
> x=my_func()
> 
> 1/ Is the above call valid?

On further consideration this should break. Include should treat files as text,
import should treat files as modules and work one way.

> 2/ What happens if my_app.exw also defines a global my_func(), and some other
> file calls that global?

It depends if the other files are linked with include or import.

--
"Any programming problem can be solved by adding a level of indirection."
--anonymous
"Any performance problem can be solved by removing a level of indirection."
--M. Haertel
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare
j.