OpenEuphoria

RE: Namespace improvement ?

• Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net> Feb 03, 2005
• 458 views

Verne Tice wrote:
> 
> 
> posted by: Verne Tice <fredfarkle at highstream.net>
> 
> Chris Bensler wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Georg Wrede wrote:
> > 
> > <SNIP> 
> > 
> > > Of course this may crap up a lot of existing code. Since I don't have
> > > code of my own that is affected by this, I feel QUALIFIED
> > > to think about this "objectively".
> > > 
> > > I think this is a pretty important issue. 
> > > 
> > > -- Another Euphoric, since Nov. 18, 2004 --
> > 
> > Realistically, it would break most everybody's code.
> > However, the transition would be very minor (change all cases of 
> > "include foo" to "global include foo"). I deal with worse scenarios, 
> > just trying to rectify the mess that namespacing makes.
> > 
> > Chris Bensler
> 
> Then,
> 
> If you don't want to break existing code (or future code based on 
> today's rules
> why not make the change:
> 
> "local include foo" to make foo's globals actually local to the 
> including
> file?
> 
> This would simply require that the new behavior be invoked explicity.
> 
> Verne Tice

Because that's a band-aid solution and doesn't actually solve the 
problem. I dislike hacks and shims. Hacks perpetuate more hacks. 
I would rather do it right once than do it poorly 10 times.

Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy