On 10/28/2018 5:06 PM, Joseph Wright wrote:
Hello all,
Looking at management of global Lua tables (for the obvious cases ...),
I notice that all of the core Mk IV files use the construct
if not modules then modules = { } end
modules["<file-name"] = { -- meta-data here
From a ConTeXt point-of-view, is it acceptable for third-parties to use
this construct, or is it 'ConTeXt maintainers only'? I'm wondering for
code used generically: it would be good to use the same approach, but I
don't want to tread on any reserved namespaces.
Hard to say ... the only generic code is the fontloader and the only
check done there is the toplevel 'context' table, so there is not much
change on a clash I guess. We can hardly claim a namespace, but now at
least it's possible to see if something is meant for context (and
originates on context, fwiw).
Anyway, I don't expect much generic code to show up. One problem I see
is that currently, as context uses that namespace, there are no
duplicates. So, it being used more general, probably means that I need
to add a mechanism that will refuse to (over)load code, but even then i
cannot oversee implications ... For latex you can consider
'latexmodules' ... up to you. It's too late now to change it to
contextmodules.
Hans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
