OpenEuphoria

RE: include paths

• Posted by bensler at mail.com Mar 17, 2002
• 477 views

> >The complete solution would also incorporate relative paths. It just
> >seems odd not to have them. It's the same as the syntax we have now, but
> >using relative path notation.
> 
> Example?

EG.

include .\libs\mylib.e
-- only search for mylib.e in libs\, which exists in the current 
directory.

I could then ship ExoticaX with the library files in their own 
directory, separating them from the examples.

 
> I agree whole-heartedly that a language should have convenience 
> features.
> On the other hand, a language like Perl includes so many 'conveniences'
> that it becomes write-only.

I am of the same mindset. While I like the conveniences, they aren't 
priorities, and generally cause more clutter and loss of productivity 
than they are worth. I have chosen those 2 as examples of, like you 
said, "dead simple" features that could be implemented, and don't 
detriment the simplicity and readability of the language.

Each of those features I mentioned, I have implemented in my current 
version of EUPP. Along with vertical slicing, function slicing, OOP 
style conversion (works with my custom OOP lib, and with objecteu), 
namespacing (obsolete now), s[0] equates to length(s) (s[1-1] doesn't). 
It will also rearrange code so that definitions appear at the top of 
routine blocks. I was working on adding eval(), but that requires 
writing an interpreter on top of my parser. I'd still like ot do that 
one.


>Already, the few changes I have made
> allows code like:
> -----------
> constant ,home = "E:"
>          ,fname = "foo.txt"
> 
> include (home) \src\ (fname)
> 
> function foo (,sequence s)
>      sequence ,t = "abc"
>               ,u = append (t, s[2..])
> ..
> end function
> ----------
> While I like it, it does begin to look like a different
> language.
> 

Keep up the good work Karl. I only wish I had the knowledge to be able 
to implement my wishes into EU.

I think your syntax for dynamic inclusion is over complicated.
The form that I recommended cleary differentiates between an absolute 
definition, and a dynamic definiton. There is no need to mingle the two 
forms. In fact, there is no need for the original form, except backwards 
compatability.

using my syntax, you would have

include( home &"\\src\\"& fname )

Chris