OpenEuphoria

Re: Preprocesser (want less functionality sooner?)

• Posted by jbrown105 at HotPOP.com Apr 29, 2001
• 548 views

Here's a good idea. Rather than doining what Goo does, which
puts namespaces in seperate files, you can do this:
turn:

namespace mine
	procedure cat()
	end procedure
end namespace

into:

--namespace mine
	procedure mine_cat()
	end procedure
--end namespace

this emulates namespaces well, doesn't require multipile files, and is
much easier to do (with a proper parser), but is somewhat less secure.

jbrown

On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 02:40:07PM -0700, Verne Tice wrote:
> 
> 
> 4/27/2001 11:03:14 PM, Humberto <codehead78 at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> 
> >I mentioned a while ago that I had started work on a
> >preprocessor that promised classes, operator
> >definitions, and namespaces.  I have solved some
> >design problems with class implementation and would
> >like some input on a few things.
> >
> >First, would you prefer I release the preprocessor
> >with operator definitions only? and have no support
> >for classes or namespaces.  (these features would come
> >later)
> >
> >
> >Thanks for any input,
> >-Humberto
> >
> 
> Humberto,
> 
> Since Euphoria provides only "local to file" and "private" (to procedures and
> functions), I would like to see namespace
> support, even more than ANY other feature.  A large Euphoria program, with
> many "includes", is very prone to name
> conflicts which can cause many problems during program development.
> 
> Am I right in assuming that your preprocessor work requires you to write a
> Euphoria parser?  I would love to see
> such a parser packaged in include files which could then be used by other
> programmers to build in some badly needed
> tools such as a cross reference list (names and types, and in which lines they
> are used).
> 
> Verne -- sss -> s for reply 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Linux User:190064
Linux Machine:84163
http://jbrown105.1avenue.com