OpenEuphoria

Re: . or : for namespace?

• Posted by Mike <vulcan at ??n.co.nz> May 06, 2008
• 677 views

Hi CK,

c.k.lester wrote:
> 
> Euler German wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Derek's "disambiguation" made a point here. So, I'm about to change 
> > my vote for the dot. It was a conditional vote, anyway. ;)
> 
> What about cases that give us this:
> 
>    a.b:c:d.e.f:g.h = "WTF?"

Are you joking here..? No, that would never be, so...

I think you made a mistake with "b:c:d" I'll assume it would have been "b:c.d"

 : binds more closely than . and is always only ever paired, never stacked,
so, it's completely unambiguous as:

a . b:c . d . e . f:g . h

the alternatives using dotted namespace would be either :

a [ b.c ] [ d ] [ e ] [ f.g ] [ h ]

or :

int tmp = b.c
int tmp2 = f.g
a . tmp . d . e . tmp2 . h


regards,
Mike