Re: private include files
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:41:30 +0000, Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net>
wrote:
>The scope that is missing is group scope. NOT private scope.
>Euphoria lacks the ability to include a file across a regulated domain
>of files.
Agreed
>What is being proposed for 'global include' would change global from
>program scope to group scope. There would be no universal program scope.
I certainly missed that. Can you quote me the lines I misunderstood?
Meanwhile, I'll just try replacing one word with another (x3):
>>Pete Lomax wrote(slightly edited):
>> A group procedure or object is visible inside sub-includes,
>> similar to global variable handling, but is removed from the
>> symbol table at the end of the file that defined it, which is more
>> like local variable handling.
>>
>> When a file is "group included", these group variables do NOT
>> disappear, but remain visible until the end of the including file.
<snip>
>Besides, as juergen pointed out. Local includes does not follow the
>character of Euphoria. In contrast, global include compliments
>Euphoria's existing scope system. It's not just a hack to make it work.
>It's a real solution.
The problem with global is that it is all or nothing, well all or just
the one file. I have no idea how you think global include will permit
a group scope.
>People need to stop trying to defeat the backwards compatability issue,
>and accept that Eu must change to be better.
When I dig my heels in, it is because I cannot see the benefit. I will
happily (unhealthily so, in fact) edit all the programs I use with no
complaints, if I understand the benefit. What I won't do is support
incompatibility to create the illusion of progress. (btdt)
>Euphoria's foremost characteristic is elegance. Consider that first.
>Elegance doesn't just mean pretty and simple. It also means stable and
>homogenous.
Well said. That is first and foremost in my mind, all the time.
In another thread there is a request for vertical slicing, which
sounds good, but saying there is no need to assign to a vertical slice
is an imbalance which worries me.
>Local includes does not fit well in Euphoria's existing structure.
What is the difference between local and group?
>The very reason WHY euphoria is simple, is because it's
>design is based on very few concepts, which are used well.
Eu gives a great /illusion/ of simplicity, agreed; I will back Rob
when/if he points out that a "simple" change is not.
>I personally, would argue against any solution geared at circumventing
>issues with backwards compatability. Deal with the compatability, and we
>will have a much more desirable and effective Euphoria.
You are quite right. Even a small gain can be worth breaking many
things, providing the fixes required are well documented, and it is at
least part of a larger plan.
For example, under the proposals as I understand them, what is the fix
required for this?
include win32lib.ew
pretty_print(1,sort(lower("cBa")),{})
Not difficult, but it must be properly documented, and justified.
Regards,
Pete
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
