Re: Downside to namespacing
irv mullins wrote:
[snip]
>
> Both approaches look like workarounds for a problem which could be solved
> neatly and cleanly, if Euphoria didn't try to enforce what appears to be
> a needless rule.
>
> If a file is included multiple times without being namespaced, then there
> should be only one copy loaded. If it is included twice with different
> qualifiers, why should it not be included twice?
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm with you on this one. I've been
advocating this concept from the early days of namespacing
suggestions. Namely ...
** Each unique namespace is a 'container'.
** A namespace may contain entries from multiple files.
** All files included into a given namespace are contained
by that namespace.
** Any given file is only present at most once in any namespace.
** To access globals in a namespace you must use the namespace
qualifier on your access expressions.
This would not have broken existing code, and it would have
helped you in your application. But RDS is never going to
implement this style of namespacing now, especially as it has
a different one.
However, having said that, I still think your approach to this
programming problem is flawed, regardless whether you are using
Euphoria or not. Do you really want multiple copies of your
routines and constants in RAM?
<soapbox>
We are doomed to work with the Euphoria we have, until such
time as an alternate supplier arrives. If you want to work
in Euphoria then you have to learn to use it as-is. RDS has
a long history of glacially slow improvements. Euphoria is
getting better, but its a bloody slow process. And all attempts to
improve the process are rejected; but that's their right, of course.
</soapbox>
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
