Derick Eddington <[email protected]> writes: >> In that vein, having a package providing an `include-file' macro >> would make sense, as it each package of ported code is very likely to >> need this functionality. > > I was imagining a (ported private include) library which the separate > packages depend on. > OK, that makes sense. Simply create a ported-base package that contains such functionality. On the other hand, I have some uses of `include' in my own libraries; using (ported private include) from e.g. spells would feel kind of dirty. I could imagine getting rid of `include' in spells, but there might be people who prefer this style of separating the code and the library metadata. Thus IMHO, it there would be merit in providing such a basic tool as `include' in a public package, separate from the `ported' collection of packages. The ported packages would depend on it, of course. I can't think of a decent name for such a package, however.
>> > Such collection will be using such functionality privately and it can >> > be changed in the future without affecting public use of the >> > collection. Some basic pathname and include functionality for private >> > use is very easy to make, so I don't think the (ported ---) collection >> > should be held-up waiting for us to attempt to design The Pathname and >> > Include Libraries Everything Should Use. >> > >> If there'd be only one collection (or package) for the ported code, I'd >> agree, but see above. > > There can be multiple packages which use an include library private to > the Ported project. > > My main point was that because these (ported ---) libraries' usage of > include or pathname functionality is behind-the-scenes, you and I don't > need to focus on consolidating our personal libraries of such > functionality. > Don't we essentially already need to do that for the `ported' project? I mean, for splitting e.g. foof-loop out of either spells or xitomatl, we need to carry an `include' facility with it; and I'm leaning towards something closer to xitomatl than spells, as spells' `include' in its current form drags along a whole bunch of other stuff -- I want the include facility to be as lightweight as reasonable for the ported project. Regards, Rotty -- Andreas Rottmann -- <http://rotty.yi.org/>
