Do we really need to allow that though?
It seems like:
a) This is just another way to get the effect of defining a class (or
mixin), but with none of the benefits.
b) Since this is the first we have seen of it, probably a little-used
feature.
Could we scale back the set of things you do with includes at this
point to be more like a normal language? I feel like some of the
flexibility there was only needed in early stages of the language and
perhaps are not so important now.
On 2008-05-09, at 11:12 EDT, Henry Minsky wrote:
Yeah I forgot you could <include> code into anyplace except the top
level.
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:08 AM, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We'd have to know that the two classes were identical too, which
should be
possible since you have your hands on the source element.
Alternatively, we
could add a UID to the name.
I guess I didn't consider this case, that you might include the
same file
more than once!
On May 9, 2008, at 8:46, "Henry Minsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
In the example scrollbar_example.lzx, there is a <include> which is
used to
include a file twice, which contains
a view that has a method (oninit-handler) in it.
This causes the compiler to generate two class declarations with
the same
name:
cd examples/components/
badtzmaru:components hqm$ lzc --runtime=swf9 scrollbar_example.lzx
Compiling: scrollbar_example.lzx to scrollbar_example.lzr=swf9.swf
Compilation errors occurred:
org.openlaszlo.sc.CompilerError: cannot declare class name more
than once:
"$lzc$class_view_$$2E$2E$2F$2E$2E$2Fexamples$2Fcomponents
$2Ftestmedia$2Ffrosty$2Elzx_1_21"
badtzmaru:components hqm$
Maybe we need to have something that checks if one of these
generated class
names is identical
to one previously generated, and simply skip generating it more
than once.
--
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
