OpenEuphoria

Re: Euphoria 3.2 compatibility

• Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at gm?i?.com> Apr 24, 2008
• 646 views

Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
>
> 
> Ok, so I just tried it. I'm wrong. Having peek2s will not break code, it will
> give a warning that it was redefined.
> 
> Now, I tried this as well:
> 
> === hi.e
> }}}
<eucode>
> global procedure hi()
>     puts(1, "hi.e: Hi!\n")
> end procedure
> </eucode>
{{{

> 
> === test.e
> include hi.e
> 
> procedure hi()
>     puts(1, "test.e: Hi!\n")
> end procedure
> 
> hi()
> </eucode>
{{{

> 
> That works also, however, it does not give a warning that hi() was redefined.
> 
> So, is the argument that new functions will break existing functions not
> valid?
> Therefore, we may have broke nothing what-so-ever in the 3.2/4.0 release?
> 
> I guess I was just moving on things I thought I saw in the past and what
> others
> have stated as well. I just tried this test in 3.1 and it works as well in
> 3.1.

It gets down to how symbols are resolved.  Overloading a built in gives a 
warning.  A local (or a global in the same file as it is being used) will
take precedence over a global in another file.  Two globals in other files
will cause breakage:

-- app.ex
include foo.e as foo
include bar.e as bar
procedure hi()
    puts(1, "app\n")
end procedure
hi()
foo:hi()
bar:hi()

-- foo.e
global procedure hi()
    puts(1,"foo\n")
end procedure
hi()

-- bar.e
include foo.e
hi()
global procedure hi()
    puts(1,"bar\n" )
end procedure
hi()

$ exu app
foo
foo
bar
app
foo
bar

Matt