Re: Idea for NameSpace-problem
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cameron Kaiser [SMTP:spectre at WWW2.BUOY.COM]
> Subject: Re: Idea for NameSpace-problem
>
>
>> Why not just implement simple OOP objects? That way all globals are
>> referred to by their declared object names
>I went with Euphoria precisely because I wanted to avoid an OOP
metaphor.
>I also agree with the need for separate namespaces, but I'm unwilling
to
>go whole hog. I like the fact that Euphoria still lets you write quick
and
>dirty scripts, and there's no OOP tongue I know of that lets you do
that
>without a lot of handwaving.
True..I'd like to be able to do both. For quick and dirty stuff, its
great not to have to use it. But for large programs it would be nice if
you could i.e. for a zillion include files or in Windoze programming
which uses objects allot!
>Someone proposed having things accessible by tacking on the .e filename
or
>whatever (so graphics.e.line or graphics_e_line, or possibly include
>graphics.e as graphics and use graphics_whatever), and I think this is
a lucid
>solution without going object crazy.
This drives me crazy having to try to remember all the cryptic variable
names that I have to use to avoid conflicts with everybody else's
include files. :)
IMHO,
Greg Harris
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
