On 9/5/2010 11:03 PM, Craig DeForest wrote:
> There is some pretty basic syntax in "use" to specify which items are
> exported to the current package. It doesn't work well with bundles (like "use
> PDL"), though.
>
> I think we discussed going to a strict object mode (no exports) some years
> ago -- do any of the other old-timers remember that? My recollection is that
> nobody wanted it at that time, or at least nobody wanted it enough to
> actually do anything about it.
>
>
>
> On Sep 5, 2010, at 7:43 PM, P Kishor wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Craig DeForest
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Easiest way:
>>>
>>> begin {package foo; use PDL; }
>>>
>>> Will export all those routines to foo rather than main. I have not tried
>>> setting foo to 'PDL'.
>>
>>
>> Thanks Craig. I will try the above. That might do the trick for now.
>>
>> I realized (while on a bike ride outside), that all this would be a
>> non-issue if all PDL methods were strictly object methods. Perhaps,
>> the developers can think of a pragma for the next version that would
>> enforce that. That way there would never be any methods exported, and
>> never any collision.
I thought that was what PDL::Lite was for. It exports nothing
into your namespace and you have to fully qualify subs or use
method syntax. As in the description of PDL::Lite says:
"Loads the smallest possible set of modules for PDL to work,
without importing an functions in to the current namespace.
This is the absolute minimum set for PDL. Although no functions
are defined (apart from a few always exported by PDL::Core) you
can still use method syntax, viz:..."
I don't know which ones are being exported by Core, if those
are the conflicting ones then something would need to be done
to deconflict. Maybe if PDL::Lite takes you 90% of the way,
you could ask Perl Dancer to come the other 10%. If that is
not possible, a feature request is in order.
My personal opinion is that there should be a no-export
flavor of PDL available and if PDL::Lite is not it, maybe
we need to revisit the discussion for ways to resolve the
problem.
@PKishor: does PDL::Lite do what you need?
--Chris
>>
>>>
>>> (Mobile)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 5, 2010, at 6:33 PM, P Kishor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Chris Marshall <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Chris, I know you want to lead me to the answer, but I am not sure
>>>>>> where you are pointing me to. I have looked at "help PDL" and "perldoc
>>>>>> PDL" and the only item of relevance to me here I see is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Exports
>>>>>> use PDL; exports a large number of routines into the calling
>>>>>> namespace. If you want to avoid namespace pollution, you must instead
>>>>>> use PDL::Lite, and include any additional modules explicitly."
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to avoid namespace pollution, you must instead
>>>>> use PDL::Lite, and include any additional modules explicitly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Seems like you told me what I have already read but haven't found helpful.
>>>>
>>>> Let me explain again... I use a module that has defined methods called
>>>> 'any' and 'get'. Now, when I use PDL, those methods get redefined. It
>>>> really doesn't matter whether I 'use PDL' or 'use PDL::Lite' and then
>>>> 'use PDL::Basic' and 'use PDL::Ufunc' and 'use PDL::Core'. What is
>>>> needed is a way to import PDL commands into a custom namespace... the
>>>> best would be to have them all available as PDL::* as that would
>>>> ensure I will never have any collision with any package ever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org
>> Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org
>> Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org
>> Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor
>> Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science
>> =======================================================================
>>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3116 - Release Date: 09/05/10
> 14:34:00
>
_______________________________________________
Perldl mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
