Re: Store Includes
Al Getz wrote:
> Hi Quark,
>
> Well, i dont think it's really an issue to argue for or against
> namespaces because this has been talked about years ago for days
> on end and the best solution was agreed to be what is actually
> present today. In my case, with my one particular library, the
> namespace is used to declare a 'class' of a sort, somewhat similar
> to a C++ class. This comes out working so wonderful and causes
> a great organization of your code without doing anything extra,
> and the readability increases to some extent too, because you dont
> wade through a bunch of code looking at verbs first and nouns second
> (like a speaking language most of the time). Rather, the nouns come
> first and the verbs second...something that someone wont fully understand
> until they've actually coded a few projects like this and then went
> back to add and modify (maintain) things. Without it it can be like having
> to look through EVERY brand of tire just to get to the car we want, when
> it should be the other way around. Also, if it's used right, the 'class'
> method can be a way of quickly changing your code and easily providing
> new objects for use using the same techniques as any other 'class'.
> This is what i call "Taking the good stuff about C++ and leaving the
> bad stuff behind" :)
> But enough with the namespace arguments, it is part of the language
> and so people will use it. That doesnt mean your program has to support
> this feature though :) If it seems to complicated then dont worry
> about it...maybe i'll be able to modify your program to work with it
> to some degree?
>
>
> Take care,
> Al
Hi Al,
I guess you've been hit with both the electronic and the biological versions
of virus and must be reeling a bit, so I particularly appreciate your sane
response. I missed the long debate on namespace, and admit I probably don't
see the whole issue.
As to the Mash.ex program, and IncAll.ex that sets up AllFiles.txt for it,
they are probably about done as far as version 0.01 is concerned. It works
now on the files I have tested and gives a single file with no items that
are not used. It reports on duplicate routines and types. I may keep its
ability to make a fuller report which shows items used and unused, with the
unused being deleted. On the files I've tested, Mash.ex mashes them down
to about 20 or 25% of the size of AllFiles.txt. This would vary, of course,
depending on the program and its includes.
When it proves decent enough for a test (soon, I think), I'll send the files
to you in mashed form for test runs. As to modifying them for namespace
issues -- that is fine with me. Great, if fact, as there might be more use
of Mash that way. Also, I suspect other possibilities may come out of this,
other than mashing.
--Quark
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
