OpenEuphoria

Re: private include files

• Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de> Oct 13, 2004
• 428 views

CoJaBo wrote:

> I would have posted this reply much erlier, but the
> cracker who posted that senseless junk (ALL YOUR
> BASE ARE BELONG TO US) seems to be crashing my router...
> (See bBelow)
>
> Patrick Barnes 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').
> I think "private include" would look much nicer,
> and be less confusing.

It will be confusing anyway, because there is no "private procedure", or
"private object". E.g. Hayden McKey is already confused, _before_ this
feature is actually implemented.

>> 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)
> I am definately against that being the default, since
> it would cause many of my programs to fail.
> In fact, I am still using 3 different versions
> of Win32Lib due to compatability problems...
> What a headache that is!

On Windows, there are good search-and-replace programs.
I don't know Linux, but what I read about it now and then, it sounds as
if there are tools for any situation on Linux anyway. 
Please keep in mind: Such a change of the language will be "forever",
and it should be _very_ clean! Half an hour of work for an "old user"
is little cost for a very clean language.

We already have
-        function/procedure foo()
- global function/procedure foo()

-        object bar
- global object bar

So it should be
-        include myfile.e
- global include myfile.e

IMHO it is almost impossible to overestimate the meaning of simplicity,
readability, and consistency of a programming language!

Additionally, as I wrote in another post, it reads in refman_2.htm,
2.4.2 Scope (Euphoria 2.4): "Euphoria encourages you to restrict the
scope of symbols."
This is important, and in this context it only can mean, that 'private
include' should be the default behaviour.

<snip>

Regards,
   Juergen

-- 
We don't know where to GOTO if we don't know where we've COME FROM.
http://www.fortran.com/fortran/come_from.html