Re: Preprocesser (want less functionality sooner?)
- Posted by jbrown105 at HotPOP.com Apr 29, 2001
- 434 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