Re: Do you currently use namespaces?
CChris wrote:
>
> Matt Lewis wrote:
> >
> > Since both files need depend upon the code, it's just being more explicit
> > about things.
> >
>
> This is completely against modular programming.
Wrong.
> If fileB.e depends on any file that provide something, but is meant to be
> included by them, you'll have fileA1.e and fileA2.e which will include
> fileB.e. Fine.
Your pattern is broken. This would be equivalent to win32lib (old days)
relying on the application to define the handler sequences, like onClick.
Instead, we have a procedure in win32lib, setHandler, that the program
calls to set the variables.
Most languages (OK, that's an unproven assertion, but I can think of at
least C/C++, java, perl and python) wouldn't even let you get away with
this.
> But now, what to code in fileB.e?
>
> include fileA1.e -- but fileA2.e might do as well
> or
> include fileA2.e -- then what about the possibiity for fileA1.e?
>
> True, you may use the new ifdef statement to choose which one. But this
> misses the core point.
>
> The core point is that you need to know the name of a file to include it.
> But you don't know the name of all the third party files that might benefit
> from including fileB.e, since what is needed is only some properties of
> the including file. This goes against reusability of fileB.e.
Again, your pattern is broken. You should expose an API for those that use
your library to supply whatever initialization stuff you need. You also
get the free bonus that you don't require that more symbols be global.
Matt
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
