OpenEuphoria

Re: private include files

• Posted by Greg Haberek <ghaberek at gmail.com> Oct 12, 2004
• 420 views

Or maybe a slightly different approach: inline files. Upon reaching
keyword 'inline' the Interpreter continues to parse that file as if it
were in the local file, yet keeping track of separate line numbers,
etc..

inline myfile.e    -- file is inserted inline at this position

~Greg


On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:48:43 +1000, Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:39:56 -0700, Derek Parnell
> <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
> > posted by: Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
> > Has anybody got any thoughts about extending the 'include' system so
> > that anything included can only been 'seen' by the file that included it.
> 
> It's been brought up before... but nothing has happened of it.
> Are there any technical problems with implementing it, Rob? That is to
> say, the visibility...
> 
> >    private include abc.e
> >
> > then only the file that has that line can see the 'globals' that are
> > defined inside "abc.e". So if another file wants to see them they also
> > have to explictly include "abc.e".
> 
> Indeed, that is perfect (or maybe 'include private').
> If Euphoria did not have to be backwards compatible, I would say
> 1-level inclusion like this  should be the default behaviour. (with an
> 'include global' or something)
> 
> The 'private include' would make namespacing problems so much easier, too...
> 
> > This is just a quick spur-of-the-moment thought, so it probably has
> > got issues with it.
> Not that I can see... certainly no logical problems to it. As long as
> it's not too difficult to implement, Rob, DO IT! 
> 
> > It would certainly help me with many of the projects I'm working on.
> And mine, too...
> 
> --
> MrTrick
> 
> 
> 
> 
>